Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Review Special Issues

A review and future directions on enhancing sustainability benefits across food-energy-water systems: the potential role of biochar-derived products

  • Received: 12 August 2019 Accepted: 07 October 2019 Published: 23 October 2019
  • The future of food-energy-water resources is an ever-increasing global concern due to a growing standard of living and population. This study presents opportunities for sustainable growth based on the previous research and developments across food-energy-water systems through biomassbased products (bioproducts), such as biochar, an emerging by-product of biofuel production. Bioproducts are in a nascent stage, but are growing steadily with improvements in production technologies and other cost-reducing strategies. Perspectives on solutions and opportunities that can promote the socio-economic resilience and ecological integrity of regional food-energy-water resources are identified through narrative and systematic literature reviews. These solutions are examined within the context of the environmental and economic parameters that influence stakeholders’ decisions concerning the adoption and use of technological solutions. Biochar has shown to be one of these products with the ability to improve productivity, particularly, in organic farming through increased water-nutrient holding capacity, organic-matter efficiency, and carbon sequestration. Additionally, biochar sorption abilities and textural features have shown to be a special solution for removing a large range of contaminants (e.g., metals and toluene) from water. However, biomass collection, transportation, and conversion costs have been identified as major challenges to produce market-responsive bioproducts. It is concluded that the recent interest in food-energy-water systems has led to research opportunities in bioproducts that can, in turn, bridge the gaps and provide groundbreaking developments for future research and growth. It is also concluded that there is an essential need for solutions-oriented projects across the food-energy-water nexus at both domestic and global level.

    Citation: Benjamin Hersh, Amin Mirkouei, John Sessions, Behnaz Rezaie, Yaqi You. A review and future directions on enhancing sustainability benefits across food-energy-water systems: the potential role of biochar-derived products[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(5): 379-416. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.5.379

    Related Papers:

    [1] Anissa Guillemin, Michael P. H. Stumpf . Non-equilibrium statistical physics, transitory epigenetic landscapes, and cell fate decision dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7916-7930. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020402
    [2] Cristina De Ambrosi, Annalisa Barla, Lorenzo Tortolina, Nicoletta Castagnino, Raffaele Pesenti, Alessandro Verri, Alberto Ballestrero, Franco Patrone, Silvio Parodi . Parameter space exploration within dynamic simulations of signaling networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(1): 103-120. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.103
    [3] Eugene Kashdan, Dominique Duncan, Andrew Parnell, Heinz Schättler . Mathematical methods in systems biology. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(6): i-ii. doi: 10.3934/mbe.201606i
    [4] Juexin Wang, Yan Wang . Towards Machine Learning in Molecular Biology. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 2822-2824. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020156
    [5] Hilla Behar, Alexandra Agranovich, Yoram Louzoun . Diffusion rate determines balance between extinction and proliferationin birth-death processes. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 523-550. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.523
    [6] Janine Egert, Clemens Kreutz . Realistic simulation of time-course measurements in systems biology. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10570-10589. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023467
    [7] Gerardo Aquino, Andrea Rocco . Bimodality in gene expression without feedback: from Gaussian white noise to log-normal coloured noise. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 6993-7017. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020361
    [8] Adam Peddle, William Lee, Tuoi Vo . Modelling chemistry and biology after implantation of a drug-eluting stent. Part Ⅱ: Cell proliferation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(5): 1117-1135. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018050
    [9] Heyrim Cho, Ya-Huei Kuo, Russell C. Rockne . Comparison of cell state models derived from single-cell RNA sequencing data: graph versus multi-dimensional space. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 8505-8536. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022395
    [10] Hal L. Smith . Tribute to Horst R. Thieme on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(1): i-iii. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.1i
  • The future of food-energy-water resources is an ever-increasing global concern due to a growing standard of living and population. This study presents opportunities for sustainable growth based on the previous research and developments across food-energy-water systems through biomassbased products (bioproducts), such as biochar, an emerging by-product of biofuel production. Bioproducts are in a nascent stage, but are growing steadily with improvements in production technologies and other cost-reducing strategies. Perspectives on solutions and opportunities that can promote the socio-economic resilience and ecological integrity of regional food-energy-water resources are identified through narrative and systematic literature reviews. These solutions are examined within the context of the environmental and economic parameters that influence stakeholders’ decisions concerning the adoption and use of technological solutions. Biochar has shown to be one of these products with the ability to improve productivity, particularly, in organic farming through increased water-nutrient holding capacity, organic-matter efficiency, and carbon sequestration. Additionally, biochar sorption abilities and textural features have shown to be a special solution for removing a large range of contaminants (e.g., metals and toluene) from water. However, biomass collection, transportation, and conversion costs have been identified as major challenges to produce market-responsive bioproducts. It is concluded that the recent interest in food-energy-water systems has led to research opportunities in bioproducts that can, in turn, bridge the gaps and provide groundbreaking developments for future research and growth. It is also concluded that there is an essential need for solutions-oriented projects across the food-energy-water nexus at both domestic and global level.


    It has been estimated that by 2050 older adults (≥ 60 years old) will comprise 22% of the world's population [1]. Older adults face significant challenges related to their social, emotional, and physical health as well as other challenges such as ageism and life transitions (e.g., retirement and grandparent status) not experienced by younger people. Accelerometer data for older adults in the United States indicate that they engage in greater amounts of sedentary behavior than any other age group [2]. Globally, similar results have been reported (in more than 60 countries), whereby older adults are more likely to report sitting for four or more hours per day greater than any other age group [3].

    Despite the findings that older adults report more sedentary behavior than other age group, they are underrepresented in studies examining health outcomes associated with sedentary behavior. The most recent Physical Activity Guidelines Report found limited data about the relationship between sedentary behavior, age, and mortality outcomes [4]. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence about sedentary behavior and age related to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer [4]. Therefore, more studies are needed to clarify the relationship between sedentary behaviors and health outcomes in older adults.

    In the general population, sedentary behavior has been identified as a risk factor independent of physical activity [5][8]. A central concern is the extent to which sedentary behavior affects the well-being of older adults. To address this issue, there is a need for studies that systematically and comprehensively review the literature. In a narrative review, measurement of sedentary behavior was evaluated, specific associations of sedentary time with geriatric-relevant health outcomes were presented, and interventions that target reducing sedentary time in older adults were analyzed; six health outcomes were reviewed [9]. To our knowledge, there has been only one comprehensive, systematic review of sedentary behavior and multiple health outcomes in older adults. In 2014, de Rezende et al [10] reported the associations between sedentary behaviors and twelve health outcomes in older adults: mortality, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic biomarkers, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, plasma glucose/Hb1Ac/glucose intolerance, cholesterol ratio and total, other cardiometabolic biomarkers, waist circumference/waist-to-hip ratio/abdominal obesity, overweight/obesity, and cancer [10]. While this review was comprehensive, in the past six years, additional studies have been published; an update of this review is needed to advance the field. Therefore, the objectives of this systematic review were to: (1) assess the relationship among sedentary behaviors and twelve health outcomes in older adults; (2) compare our findings to previous reviews; and (3) present recommendations to advance the field.

    Sedentary behavior is operationalized as any activity engaged in while sitting including leisure and occupational time. In addition, sedentary behavior is defined as any waking behavior accounting for energy in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting or reclining position [4],[11]. Sedentary behaviors include television viewing and computer use [11].

    In our study, there was no contact with human participants; therefore, this research was exempt from Institutional Review Board approval.

    We updated the 2014 review [10], which identified articles up to May of 2013. Therefore, we searched articles from 2013 to June 2019 (six years). Similar to the search strategy of the prior review [10], the following databases were used with the assistance of a professional librarian: Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Because of access issues, we did not search the following databases identified in the 2014 review: Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), SPORTDiscus, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILLACS), and Sedentary Behavior Research Database (SBRD). However, to extend and expand our search, we added the following databases not included in the prior review: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Academic Search Premier. We chose outcomes that were most relevant for people 60 years and older which included the outcomes chosen in the previous review [10]. Our objective was to capture “geriatric-relevant health outcomes” [9].

    As in the previous review [10], the same search keywords were used: “exposures (sedentary behavior, sedentary lifestyles, sitting time, television reviewing, driving, screen-time, video game, and computer); primary outcomes (mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus); and secondary outcomes (accidental falls, frail elderly, obesity, metabolic syndrome, mental disorders, musculoskeletal diseases)” . Studies that were excluded: review articles, studies with adults younger than 60 years of age, and descriptive data only studies. In two subsections, there were no recent empirical data. To fill this gap and to provide a context, two systematic reviews/meta-analyses were cited as exceptions to our exclusion criteria.

    Data from eligible articles were extracted by one author and reviewed independently by a second author. The tables present: Author(s), Year, Title, Journal, Hypotheses/Study Aims, Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country, Measures, Primary Findings, Limitations, and Strengths.

    Because of its credibility and reputation of having “state of art” and “gold standard” assessments, we rated each article based on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Study Quality Assessment Tools [12]. Each research design had a specific assessment tool to evaluate quality assessment. The research designs were controlled intervention studies (14 questions), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (8 questions), observational cohort and cross-sectional studies (14 questions), case-control studies (12 questions), before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group (12 questions), and case series studies (9 questions). For each category, the response choices were yes, no, or other (e.g., CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported). To ensure accurate reporting, each design was accompanied by a document called “guidance for assessing the quality”. This document provided guidelines, rules, and tips to answer specific questions for each research design. The final quality ratings were Good, Fair, or Poor. One of the coauthors rated each study independently. All coauthors rated the same study for consensus if there were concerns or ambiguity about any ratings.

    As described in Figure 1, the search started with 10,591 potentially relevant articles. After screening articles for duplicates, review articles, meta-analyses, not relevant areas of interest, and other reasons, 27 articles were reviewed and described. Articles are presented in Tables 1 to 9. In the 2014 review, 23 articles met the inclusion criteria [10].

    Figure 1.  Flowchart outlining study selection of articles.

    All-cause mortality is the most severe outcome associated with sedentary behavior. Across all studies, there was a consistent association between sedentary behavior and mortality [13]. Six prospective cohort studies were identified. In one prospective cohort of Spanish older adults, those who were consistently non-sedentary had a lower hazard ratio (HR = 0.74, 95% confidence ratio (CI) = 0.62–0.90) for mortality than those who were consistently sedentary [14]. Studies conducted in both older men and women yielded similar results with respect to mortality risk. Ensrud et al. [15] found that older men who were in the highest quartile of sedentary behavior had a higher risk for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.10–2.08) when compared to those in the lowest quartile. Similarly, in a sample of Australian women, there was a dose response relationship between sitting and those who were not meeting physical activity guidelines [16]. In particular, the risk for mortality increased for non-active women who reported 8 or more hours of sedentary time (i.e., for 8 to 11 hours OR = 1.31 and for ≥ 11 hours OR = 1.47) when compared to those who sat less than 4 hours per day (p < 0.05). Similarly, in a sample of British men, each additional 30 minutes of sedentary behavior increased the risk for mortality (HR = 1.17 95% CI; 1.10 to 1.25 p < 0.05) [17]. Conversely, Klenk et al. [18] found that the association between sedentary behavior and mortality diminished after adjustments for several biomarkers (HR = 2.05 95% CI: 1.13, 3.73 p < 0.05). Furthermore, in a sample of older adults from Spain, being in the highest quartile for sedentary behavior increased the risk for mortality due to inflammatory (HR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.08, 2.06) and non-infectious inflammatory causes (HR = 1.59 95% CI: 1.08, 2.33) [19]. However, these models became non-significant when adjusting for physical activity. In examining patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior together, high levels of sedentary behavior (> 7 hours per day), regardless of physical activity levels were associated with mortality from inflammatory (HR = 1.68 95% CI: 1.19, 2.37) and non-infectious inflammatory causes [19].

    In our review, we identified six prospective cohort studies and Rezende et al. 2014 [10] described four prospective cohort studies. The findings are remarkably similar. For older adults, sedentary behavior (particularly sitting) six or more hours per day was consistently related to all-cause mortality. In the studies, the thresholds for sedentary behavior/sitting time ranged from 6, 8, 8 to 11, and 11 or more hours per day.

    Table 1.  Mortality, sedentary behavior, and older adults (references from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Cabanas-Sanchez, Guallar-Castillon et al., (2018); Physical activity, sitting time and mortality from inflammatory disease in older adults. Frontiers in Physiology Study focused on infectious and non-infectious inflammatory causes. Prospective Cohort study (N = 3,667)

    Men and women ages 60 years and older in Spain
    Sedentary data were self-reported.
    Mortality identified using the National Death Index.
    In nonlinear models, those who were sedentary > 7 hours per day had a higher mortality risk for total inflammatory and non-infectious inflammatory causes. Relationships were stronger for those who were the least active. Sedentary time and physical activity were self-reported.

    No dietary data were collected.
    Inflammatory disease definition may not encompass all related conditions.
    Prospective cohort study

    Spanish population

    National database to confirm deaths

    Focus on mortality due to inflammatory and non-inflammatory causes
    Ensrud, Blackwell, Cauley et al., (2014); Objective measures of activity level and mortality in older men. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Study focused on developing objective measures of activity level for older adult men, related to all-cause mortality. Prospective Cohort study (N = 2,918)

    Men ages 71 years and older in the United States
    Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior (ACTi Graph)

    Deaths confirmed via death certificate and follow-up calls.
    In adjusted models, men in the highest quartile for sedentary time had a higher risk for all-cause mortality. Subsequent analysis indicated that time spent sedentary was associated with non-cancer and non-CVD deaths. Associations for women or racial and ethnic minority populations not determined Objective assessment of behavior

    Cohort study

    Disease specific mortality
    Jefferis, Parsons, Sartini et al., (2018); Objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behavior and all-cause mortality in older men: Does volume of activity matter more than pattern of accumulation? Br J Sports Med To examine the association between accelerometer determined sedentary behavior, physical activity, and all-cause mortality Prospective Cohort study (N = 1,655)
    Men ages 71–92years old in the United Kingdom
    Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior (ACTi Graph)

    National database confirmed mortality
    In adjusted models, those in the highest quartile for sedentary time had a higher risk for all-cause mortality when compared to men in the lowest quartile. No measure of postural allocation
    Associations for women or racial and ethnic minority populations not determined
    Prospective cohort study.

    An objective measure of sedentary behavior
    Klenk, Dallmeier, Denkinger et al., (2016); Objectively measured walking duration and sedentary behavior and four-year mortality in older people. Plos ONE This study examined the effect of walking and sedentary time on mortality. Randomly and geographically selected cohort of older adults in Germany (N = 1,271) aged 65 years or greater. Physical activity levels were accelerometer determined sedentary behavior (ActivPAL)

    Mortality determined via local registration offices
    Sedentary duration association between sedentary time and mortality diminished in fully adjusted models. Limited follow-up period

    Slower walking speeds may have different outcomes
    Use of ActivePAL to measure sedentary behavior
    Leon-Munoz, Martinez-Gomez, Balboa-Castillo et al., (2013); Continued sedentariness, change in sitting time, and mortality in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc To examine the association between continued sedentary time and changes in sedentary time with mortality Prospective Cohort (N = 2,635) of adults aged 60 years and older. Self-reported sedentary time in different activities

    National Death Index confirmed deaths
    Those who were consistently sedentary had higher mortality rates when compared to those who were newly sedentary, formally sedentary, and consistently non-sedentary. Associations maintained in different SES strata. Self-reported questionnaires Other factors may be related to mortality Prospective cohort study

    Mortality confirmed via National Death Index.

    Analysis in different SES strata
    Pavey, Peeters, Brown (2015); Sitting-time and 9-year all-cause mortality in older women. Br J Sports Med This study looked at the relationship between total sitting-time and all-cause mortality in older women. Prospective cohort study (N = 6,656) of Australian Women ages 76–90. Self-reported questionnaires

    Mortality data confirmed by the Australian National Death Index.
    In fully adjusted models there was a dose-response relationship between time spent sitting and mortality. However, only the p-value for the trend was significant. Other factors may be related to mortality.

    Self-reported questionnaires
    Confirmed morality data

    Prospective cohort design

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of future chronic health conditions and premature mortality. Evidence from cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies, and randomized controlled trials suggest that sedentary time, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and cardio-respiratory fitness are important predictors of various cardio-metabolic risk factors [20]. The main finding was that total daily time spent in sedentary behaviors was associated with increased odds of having metabolic syndrome without accounting for effect modifiers [20]. Evidence showed a 9% increase in the odds of having metabolic syndrome with each additional hour of sitting time. Findings showed a 58% (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.01, 2.48) increased odds of metabolic syndrome when comparing the highest (> 9.49 h) and the lowest (< 6.70 h) quartiles [20].

    In our review, we identified two studies published in 2015 related to sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome. Rezende et al. described four studies [10]. The findings indicated that sedentary behavior is adversely and consistently related to metabolic syndrome.

    One study found statistically significant interactions between sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity for triglycerides (p = 0.04), HDL-cholesterol (p = 0.01), fasting blood glucose. In addition, there were increased odds of having low HDL-cholesterol with each hour of sedentary behavior time for those who accumulated 150–300 and ≥ 300 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity, respectively [21]. Similarly, increased odds of 13% were found (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01, 1.26) for having high fasting blood glucose with each hour of sedentary time for those who accumulated ≥ 300 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [21]. Each minute spent in sedentary behavior was significantly associated with reductions of 0.03 mmHg (95%CI: −0.05; −0.01) in systolic blood pressure and reductions of 0.02 mg/dL (95%CI: −0.02; −0.01) in HDL-cholesterol [22]. Beneficial associations of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity and HDL (β = 0.10; 95%CI: 0.01; 0.18) and plasma glucose (β = −0.18; 95%CI: −0.33; −0.02) were observed [22]. Similarly, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity was associated with higher levels of HDL (β = −0.35; 95%CI: 0.14; 0.54), but it was not related to the other cardiovascular risk markers [22]. In a randomized, sedentary behavior reduction trial, Aadahl et al. [23] found that the intervention condition experienced greater improvements in insulin (−5.9 pmol/L, p = 0.03), insulin resistance (−0.28, p = 0.03), and waist circumference (−1.42 cm, p = 0.01) when compared to the control condition participants.

    Table 2.  Cardio-metabolic markers, cholesterol ratio and total, metabolic syndrome, triglycerides, HgA1C, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Ekblom, Ö., Ekblom-Bak, E., Rosengren, A., Hallsten, M., Bergström, G., Börjesson, M., & Lazzeri, C. (2015); Cardiorespiratory fitness, sedentary behavior and physical activity are independently associated with the metabolic syndrome, Results from the SCAPIS Pilot Study. PLoS ONE Examine the association between sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome Random stratified sample of adults aged 50 to 65 years living in Sweden (N = 1111) Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Serum samples used to detect metabolic syndrome
    In adjusted models, the highest quartile for sedentary time had higher odds for metabolic syndrome when compared to the first quartile. Sedentary time increased the odds of a larger waist circumference and higher triglyceride, and HDL cholesterol levels. Cross-sectional design

    Possibility of multi-collinearity
    Adjusted for dietary intake and fitness

    Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Random stratified sample
    Joseph, J., Echouffo-Tcheugui, J., Golden, S., Chen, H., Jenny, N., Carnethon, M., Bertoni, A. (2016); Physical activity, sedentary behaviors and the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care Examine the association between sedentary behavior and diabetes Prospective cohort (N = 5829) of men and women from the United States aged 45–84 years old Incident type II diabetes determined by fasting glucose

    Self-reported sedentary time
    In adjusted models, both television time and total sedentary behavior increased the odds for type II diabetes. Possible effect modification by family history of diabetes, race, and BMI were observed. Physical activity and sedentary behaviors were self-reported, and the time frame queried was their typical activities within the last month. Therefore, discrepancies with actual activity levels may exist and self-reported sedentary behavior Multiethnic population

    Serum-based biomarkers
    Wirth, K., Klenk, J., Brefka, S., Dallmeier, D., Faehling, K., Roqué, M., Denkinger, M. (2017); Biomarkers associated with sedentary behavior in older adults: A systematic review. Ageing Research Reviews Patho-mechanisms of sedentary behavior (SB) are unclear. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the associations between SB and various biomarkers in older adults. Electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED) up to July 2015 to identify studies with objective or subjective measures of SB, sample size ≥ 50, mean age ≥ 60years and accelerometer wear time ≥ 3days. Methodological quality was appraised with the CASP tool. Randomized controlled trials found a positive correlation for SB with BMI, neck circumference, fat mass, HbA1C, cholesterol and insulin levels, cohort studies additionally for waist circumference, leptin, C-peptide, and low-density lipoprotein and a negative correlation for HDL. The final sample (26 articles) 63 biomarkers were detected. Most investigated markers were body mass index (BMI, n = 15), waist circumference (WC, n = 15), blood pressure (n = 11), triglycerides (n = 12) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL, n = 15). Some inflammation markers were identified such as interleukin-6, C-reactive protein or tumor necrosis factor alpha. There was a lack of renal, muscle or bone biomarkers. First, we identified relatively few high quality or longitudinal studies investigating biomarkers specifically in older adults. Therefore, we were not able to conduct a meta-analysis as we anticipated. The highlighted results of the four “risk population” studies showed associations for SB with biomarkers in the same direction as the studies performed in non-risk populations.
    Figueiró, T. H., Arins, G., Santos, C., Cembranel, F., Medeiros, P. A., d'Orsi, E., & Rech, C. R. (2019); Association of objectively measured sedentary behavior and physical activity with cardiometabolic risk markers in older adults. Plos ONE Examine the association between sedentary behavior and cardiometabolic markers Cross-sectional study of Brazilians adults (N = 425) aged 60 years and older Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Waist circumference, blood pressure, and plasma-based cardio-metabolic markers
    Sedentary behavior negatively and linearly associated with systolic blood pressure and HDL cholesterol. Physically inactive and sedentary individuals had greater waist circumference and lower HDL cholesterol levels than active, non-sedentary subjects. Cross-sectional study design

    Confounding variables (i.e., medications and BMI) not included in the analysis
    Objectively measured sedentary time

    Plasma-based biomarkers
    Aadahl, M., Linneberg, A., Møller, T., Rosenørn, S., Dunstan, D., Witte, D., & Jørgensen, T. (2014); Motivational counseling to reduce sitting time: A community-based randomized controlled trial in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine Examine the effectiveness of a sedentary behavior intervention Randomized trial of 166 adults aged adults aged 18–69 years old from Denmark Objectively measured overall sitting time; secondary measures were breaks in sitting time; anthropometric Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior (ActivPAL

    Body fat percentage determined by Tanita BC-420MA

    Serum measures of insulin homeostasis model assessment, hepatic insulin resistance, and basil insulin secretion, glycosylated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, LDL and HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides
    The reduction in sedentary time did not differ between groups. The intervention group had greater improvements in standing time than the control group. Greater improvements in insulin resistance was observed in the intervention condition when compared to the control group. No other differences were observed. No dietary information was included

    Uneven sample size in the intervention and control condition.
    Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Serum biological markers

    Randomized design

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We identified three relevant studies and, in our review, with the exception of systolic blood pressure, sedentary behavior/sitting was associated with unfavorable biometric indices. In the 2014 review, for two of the three studies, the associations between time spent in sedentary behavior and high triglycerides was not statistically significant. Overall, the literature in this area is not consistent.

    In a cross-sectional descriptive study (with 306 elderly Koreans with hypertension), levels and predictors of sedentary behavior were examined [24]. The participants spent an average of 8.59 hours per day in sedentary behavior. The analysis showed that sedentary behavior was significantly predicted by a longer duration since hypertension diagnosis, greater levels of depressive symptoms, and lower levels of perceived health, vigorous-intensity physical activity, and empowerment (i.e., a composite score of sense of control, self-efficacy, problem solving, psychosocial coping, support, motivation, and decision making). These variables explained 42.6% of the variance in sedentary behavior [24].

    In our review, we found one study related to blood pressure. However, blood pressure was not analyzed as a predictor or consequence of sedentary behavior. In the prior review, two of the three publications reported that sedentary time was associated with high blood pressure [10]. This area of research is emerging and more definitive studies are needed.

    Sedentary behavior has been associated with glucose levels and insulin secretions. Lifestyle interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviors such as television watching have the potential to improve glucose metabolism. Joseph et al. [25] found that both sedentary behavior (< 2 versus > 6 hours/day: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.26, 2.14) and television viewing (< 2 versus > 6 hours/day: OR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.38, 5.21) were associated with risk of type II diabetes in adjusted models. The association remained after adjusting for BMI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.81). Some of these relationships differed by racial and ethnic identity.

    Since 2013, we found one study that examined the association between sedentary behavior and type 2 diabetes. A positive association was reported between type 2 diabetes risk, leisure sedentary behavior, and television viewing, which may be more pronounced in non-Hispanics whites. In the prior review [10], four studies were found. One study reported a positive association between television viewing, sedentary time and plasma glucose; in another study, a positive relationship was found in women only; in two studies, the findings were not statistically significant [10]. Overall, the findings are mixed and inconsistent related to sedentary behavior, HBA1C/Glucose Intolerance, and diabetes. Clearly, more research is needed.

    Table 3.  Blood pressure, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Chang & Sok (2015); Predictors of sedentary behavior in elderly Koreans with hypertension, The Journal of Nursing Research Examine predictors of sedentary behavior Cross-sectional study (N = 306) of Korean adults aged 65 years and older Self-reported sedentary behavior

    Psychosocial variables (i.e., empowerment, perceived health, depression, self-efficacy, and social support for physical activity)
    Stepwise regression analysis indicated that empowerment, duration since HBP diagnosis, perceived health, vigorous-intensity physical activity, and depressive symptoms were determinants of sedentary behavior. Self-reported measures of sedentary behavior

    Cross-sectional design
    Validated measures

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Our review found one study with no statistically significant results. Rezende et al. 2014 reported three studies; two studies reported positive results between television viewing, high total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio and leisure-time sedentary behavior, television viewing, and cholesterol ratio [10]. A third study found no statistically significant findings between sedentary behavior and total cholesterol. Overall, two studies including the most recent one (2019) found no association and two earlier studies (2007 and 2012) found positive associations. To clarify the relationships between cholesterol and sedentary behaviors in this emerging area, more definitive research is recommended.

    There is a scarcity of studies investigating inflammatory biomarkers and sedentary behavior. Therefore, we included one review article as an exception to our exclusion criteria. Wirth and colleagues (2017) [26] defined sedentary activity as waking behavior with an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 METS while in a sitting or reclining posture. C-reactive protein, which is a protein made by your liver that is sent into your bloodstream in response to inflammation, was investigated most frequently; although, restricted to four cross-sectional studies and one randomized controlled trial, only two cross-sectional studies demonstrated that sedentary behavior was positively associated with C-reactive protein [26]. Neck circumference and fat mass were positively correlated to sedentary behavior but were investigated in only one randomized controlled trial [27]. There was limited or no evidence for the other anthropometric biomarkers [26].

    In our review, the findings related to sedentary behavior and C-reactive protein were not consistent. Rezende et al. 2014 reported a study that found a positive relationship between sedentary behavior and C-reactive protein [10]. In three of the five studies, positive associations were found between C-reactive protein and sedentary behavior. Other cardio-metabolic biomarkers such as pericardial fat, coronary artery calcification, neck circumference, and fat mass merit further research.

    An area of great interest is the impact of sedentary behavior on the waist circumference of older adults. Three cross-sectional studies were identified; sedentary behavior had strong positive associations with waist circumference. In models adjusted for moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity, sedentary behavior was positively associated with both weight and waist circumference [27]. Similarly, Bann et al. [28] found that sedentary behavior was inversely associated with body mass index (BMI). In addition, less time spent in sedentary behavior and more time spent in light-intensity physical activities resulted in lower BMIs. These results were partially supported by a cross-sectional study [22].

    Table 4.  Waist circumference, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Bann, Hire, Manini et al. (2015); Light intensity physical activity and sedentary behavior in relation to body mass index and grip strength in older adults: cross-sectional findings from the lifestyle interventions and independence for elders (LIFE) study. Plos ONE Examine the association between sedentary behavior, BMI, and grip strength. Cross-sectional study (N = 1,130) of adults aged 70–89 living in the United States. Accelerometer determined sedentary time

    Jamar determined grip strength

    BMI and waist circumference measured by trained staff
    In adjusted models, sedentary behavior was associated with BMI. Less time spent sedentary and more time spent in light-intensity physical activities was associated with BMI Cross sectional design Use of BMI as a measure of body size
    Gennuso, Gangnon Matthews (2013); Sedentary behavior, physical activity, and markers of health in older adults. Medicine and science in sports and exercise Examine the association between sedentary behavior, physical activity, and cardiometabolic markers Population based cross-sectional study (N = 1914) of adults aged 65 years and older living in the United States Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Cardiometabolic markers (total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol, glucose, triglycerides, glycohemoglobin, waist circumference, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein)

    Physical function
    In adjusted models, higher quartiles of sedentary behavior were associated with weight, BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and C-reactive protein among participants who were insufficiently active older adults. Among sufficiently active older adults, higher quartiles of sedentary behavior were associated with waist circumference and LDL cholesterol levels. In addition, insufficiently active older adults who were less sedentary had lower odds of functional limitations. Cross-sectional design Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Population based sample

    Serum cardiometabolic markers
    Figueiró, T. H., Arins, G., Santos, C., Cembranel, F., Medeiros, P. A., d'Orsi, E., & Rech, C. R. (2019); Association of objectively measured sedentary behavior and physical activity with cardiometabolic risk markers in older adults. Plos ONE Examine the association between sedentary behavior and cardiometabolic markers Cross-sectional study of Brazilians adults (N = 425) aged 60 years and older Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Waist circumference, blood pressure, and plasma based cardiometabolic markers
    Sedentary behavior was negatively and linearly associated with systolic blood pressure and HDL cholesterol. Physically inactive and sedentary individuals had greater waist circumference and lower HDL cholesterol levels than active, non-sedentary subjects. Cross-sectional study design

    Confounding variables (i.e., medications and BMI) not included in the analysis
    Objectively measured sedentary time

    Plasma-based biomarkers

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In our review, the findings were consistent; in three studies, sedentary behavior was related to greater waist circumference in older adults. Similarly, in five of six studies, sedentary behavior was related to high waist circumference and high waist-to-hip ratio as reported in the prior review [10]. The only exception to the consistent findings is a study in a colorectal cancer population in which sedentary time was not associated with waist circumference. Overall, however, the research is consistent; sedentary time is a risk factor for greater waist circumference in older adults.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classify individuals as obese with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30.0 kg/m2. A systematic review study indicated that sedentary behavior was linked to increased risk of obesity in various populations [29]. We identified three cross-sectional studies in our search. In an earlier study of older adults in the United States [27], positive associations were found between sedentary behavior and BMI. Similarly, Bann et al. [28] found that sedentary behavior was inversely associated with BMI, especially among those with lower levels of light-intensity physical activity. Furthermore, these results were supported by strong associations observed between sedentary behavior and waist circumference among older adults in Portugal. In particular, for each additional 10- to 20- minutes of sedentary time, the odds of abdominal obesity increased 6.8%. The odds increased up to 48% for each additional 60 minutes of time spent in sedentary behavior [30].

    In our review, we found that all three studies reported positive associations between sedentary time and obesity, measured by BMI or waist circumference. In the prior review [10], five of the six studies reported a positive association between sedentary behavior and obesity. The one exception was a study examining the association between automobile-based sedentary behavior and obesity [10]. Overall, the research is consistent in that eight of nine studies reported a positive relationship between sedentary behavior, overweight, and obesity in older adults.

    Table 5.  Obesity, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Bann, Hire, Manini et al. (2015); Light intensity physical activity and sedentary behavior in relation to body mass index and grip strength in older adults: cross-sectional findings from the lifestyle interventions and independence for elders (LIFE) study. Plos ONE Examine the association between sedentary behavior, BMI, and grip strength. Cross-sectional study (N = 1,130) of adults aged 70–89 living in the United States. Accelerometer determined sedentary time

    Jamar determined grip strength

    BMI and waist circumference measured by trained staff
    In adjusted models, sedentary behavior was associated with BMI. Less time spent sedentary and more time spent in light-intensity physical activities were associated with BMI Cross sectional design Use of BMI as a measure of body size
    Gennuso, Gangnon, Matthews (2013); Sedentary behavior, physical activity, and markers of health in older adults. Medicine and science in sports and exercise Examine the association between sedentary behavior, physical activity, and cardiometabolic markers Population based cross-sectional study (N=1914) of adults aged 65 years and older living in the United States Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Cardiometabolic markers (total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol, glucose, triglycerides, glycohemoglobin, waist circumference, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein)

    Physical function
    In adjusted models, higher quartiles of sedentary behavior were associated with weight, BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and C-reactive protein among participants who were insufficiently active older adults. Among sufficiently active older adults, higher quartiles of sedentary behavior were associated with waist circumference and LDL cholesterol levels. In addition, insufficiently active older adults who were less sedentary had lower odds of functional limitations.
    Cross-sectional design
    Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Population based sample

    Serum cardiometabolic markers
    Judice, Silva, & Sardinha (2015); Sedentary bout durations are associated with abdominal obesity in older adults. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging Examine the association between sedentary time and patterns of abdominal obesity Cross-sectional study (N = 351) of older adults (aged 65–103 years) from Portugal Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior
    Waist circumference measured by trained staff
    No association was observed with total sedentary time and abdominal obesity. However, for bouts of sedentary time that ranged from 10–20 minutes up to <60 minutes, each bout significantly increased the odds of abdominal obesity. Cross sectional design
    Dietary variables not considered in models
    Objectively measured sedentary time

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We identified eight articles published since 2013 that examined the association between sedentary behavior and mental and cognitive health. Two of the studies focused on dementia [31],[32]. In one study, the authors reported that institutionalized versus community-dwelling dementia patients had 23.5% lower daily physical activity levels (p = 0.004) and spent 9.3% more time in sedentary behavior (p = 0.032). Community-dwelling dementia patients had daily physical activity levels and sedentary time 21.6% lower (p = 0.007) and 8.9% longer (p = 0.078) than healthy older adults [31]. In another study, sedentary time and sedentary bout duration were significantly greater in dementia patients than in age- and sex-matched cognitively healthy older adults [32].

    Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as cognitive decline greater than expected for age and education level, which does not interfere with independence. Mild cognitive impairment is associated with up to a 30% increased risk of developing dementia within 5 years [33]. In contrast, older adults without mild cognitive impairment develop dementia at a rate of 1% to 2% within 5 years [33]. Therefore, mild cognitive impairment is a critical phase to intervene because it is a transitional stage between healthy cognition and dementia [33]. As observed by Falck et al. 2017, providing effective strategies to maintain cognitive health during this transition period might slow the conversion to dementia [33]. We identified four articles related to mild cognitive impairment. Engeroff et al. 2018 reported that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels (measure of brain plasticity) were detrimentally associated with sedentary time but beneficially related to accelerometer total activity counts and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [34]. Falck et al. [33] found that participants with probable mild cognitive impairment had lower physical activity and greater sedentary behavior compared to participants without mild cognitive impairment.

    Parkinson's disease is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder characterized by rigidity, tremor, impaired postural stability, decreased walking ability, and an increased risk of falls [35]. People with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease reported 75% of waking hours spent in sedentary behaviors and 18% engaged in physical activity [35].

    Subjective cognitive complaints are a meaningful indicator of dementia onset or mild cognitive impairment [36]. Nemoto et al. (2018) found that moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity was significantly related with a lower risk of subjective cognitive complaints and that reading showed a dose-response relationship with subjective cognitive complaints [36]. The group who reported > 150 min/week physical activity and > 30 min/day reading showed 60% lower subjective cognitive complaints than the group who reported < 150 min/week physical activity and < 10 min/day reading [36].

    Subjective well-being refers to personal evaluations of the degree or extent to which a person considers his/her life meaningful, satisfying, worthwhile, and rewarding [37]. A key to measure a person's wellbeing is the perception of quality of life being experienced [37]. We found two studies related to well-being and sedentary behavior. Okely et al. (2019) reported no association between wellbeing or symptoms of anxiety and sedentary time. On the other hand, symptoms of depression were positively associated with sedentary time [38]. Ku et al. (2015) found that participants who had greater frequencies of leisure-time physical activity and sedentary behaviors, especially engaging in walking, yard/gardening, group exercise, television watching, social chatting, and reading recorded greater levels of well-being. Other types of activities, such as solitary exercise, listening to radio and playing chess/cards were not related to subjective well-being [37]. Clearly, the type of sedentary behavior makes a difference related to health outcomes.

    In our review, we found eight articles. Dementia was related to sedentary behavior. In three of the four studies, sedentary behavior was related to mild cognitive impairment. In one study, reading was related to lower subjective cognitive complaints. Symptoms of depression were positively associated with sedentary time. In contrast, participants who watched television, chatted socially, and read, recorded greater levels of well-being. Rezende et al. 2014 presented six studies [10]. Individuals who played board games and read were less likely to develop dementia. Similarly, reading books, playing board games, craft activities, computer activities, and watching television were significantly associated with decreased odds of having mild-cognitive impairment (two studies). In contrast, two studies found that sedentary time was negatively associated with psychological well-being and the highest quartile of sitting time was negatively associated with mental health. On the other hand, one study found no association between four or more hours per day of sedentary behavior and successful aging. Considering both reviews, the type of sedentary behavior can be important in understanding the findings. A taxonomy of sedentary behaviors for older adults is needed to elucidate the divergent findings related to sedentary behavior and mental health.

    We found one study related to cancer [39]. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of a mixed exercise program compared to stretching only to improve physical capacity and decrease sedentary behavior time in older adults during cancer treatment. The mixed physical exercise combined aerobic and resistance training. A greater decrease in sedentary behavior time was observed in favor of the mixed exercise program compared to the stretching only program [39].

    Both reviews identified only one study related to cancer. In the Rezende et al. 2014 review [10], no association was found between time watching television or videos and renal cell carcinoma. Cancer and sedentary behavior in older adults are underdeveloped areas of research.

    Table 6.  Dementia, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    van Alphen et al. (2016); Older adults with dementia are sedentary for most of the day. Plos ONE To objectively assess the physical activity levels of community dwelling and institutionalized ambulatory patients with dementia and to compare with the physical activity levels of cognitive healthy older adults. The research design was a longitudinal study that examined the effects of regular physical activity on the health of dementia patients; participants were recruited via medical staff of aged care facilities. There were 83 institutionalized [mean age 83.0 (7.6)] and 37 community-dwelling dementia patients [mean age 77.3 (5.6)], and 26 healthy older adults [mean age 79.5 (5.6)]. The study was conducted in The Netherlands. Actigraphy was used to assess physical activity levels that were based on the raw data. Sedentary behavior was classified < 100 counts/min. Institutionalized vs. community-dwelling dementia patients had 23.5% lower daily physical activity levels (p = .004) and spent 9.3% more time in sedentary behavior (p = .032). Community-dwelling dementia patients vs healthy older adults' daily physical activity levels and sedentary time were 21.6% lower (p = .007) and 8.9% longer (p = .078). One limitation is that all activity counts per minute represent the same physical activity intensity for healthy as well as adults with dementia. Another limitation is the selection procedure of institutions and daycare centers and homes based on existing collaborations. The first study to objectively characterize institutionalized and community-dwelling dementia patients' physical activity and sedentary behavior levels.
    Hartman et al. (2018); Dementia patients are more sedentary and less physically active than age-and sex-matched cognitively healthy older adults. Dementia Geriatric Cognitive Disorders To examine physical activity and sedentary behavior characteristics of ambulatory and community-dwelling patients with dementia compared to cognitively healthy age-, sex- and weight-matched controls. Cross-sectional study - persons with a dementia diagnosis aged > 60 years who were ambulatory and community dwelling were included. (n = 45, age 79.6 ± 5.9 years), and matched controls (n = 49, age 80.0 ± 7.7 years). Cognitively healthy controls were age, sex, and weight matched to dementia patients and had no history of cognitive impairment. The study was conducted in The Netherlands. Dementia diagnosis was based on comprehensive clinical assessment by a physician.
    Mini-Mental
    State Examination indicated severity of cognitive impairment. Participants wore a wrist accelerometer for 7 days to assess sedentary time, sedentary bout duration and time spent in very light, light-to-moderate and moderate-to-vigorous physical activities.
    Relative sedentary time and sedentary bout duration were significantly greater in dementia patients than in controls. In addition, dementia patients spent a lower percentage of their waking time in light-to-moderate and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activities. Secondly, older age was associated with a decline in physical activity and increase in sedentary behavior in controls; however, no such age-related changes were found in dementia patients. The design of the study could not answer the question whether differences in physical activity and sedentary behavior are simply a consequence of dementia. Only community-dwelling patients were included; therefore, results cannot be generalized to institutionalized dementia patients. Furthermore, a potential bias related to the study enrollment should be considered. Dementia patients in the study were enrolled in an exercise trial. An accelerometer is a validated measure of physical activity and sedentary behavior. A novel finding was that differences between dementia patients and controls remain when corrected for sleep time.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Mild cognitive impairment, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Engeroff et al. (2018); Is objectively assessed sedentary behavior, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness linked to brain plasticity outcomes in old age? Neuroscience Examine the association between brain plasticity outcomes and brain-derived neurotrophic factor Cross-sectional study (N = 50) of older adults (aged 73–77 years old) in Germany Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Serum markers of brain metabolism and brain-derived neurotrophic factors (BDNF)

    Cardiorespiratory fitness
    Sedentary time was associated with BDNF, but not brain metabolism measures Small sample

    Cognitively healthy sample
    Well controlled study

    Novel methods
    Falck et al. (2017);
    Cross-sectional relationships of physical activity and sedentary behavior with cognitive function in older adults with probable mild cognitive impairment. Physical Therapy
    To examine differences in physical activity and sedentary behavior between people with probable mild cognitive impairment and people without mild cognitive impairment and to assess whether associations of physical activity and sedentary behavior with cognitive function differed by mild cognitive impairment status. The study was cross sectional. The sample size was 150. The mean age was 71.11 years old (7.22). The location was Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Physical activity and sedentary behavior in adults dwelling in the community were measured using a wrist-worn actigraphy unit. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment categorized participants with probable mild cognitive impairment and participants without the condition. Cognitive function was indexed using the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive-Plus. Participants with probable mild cognitive impairment had lower physical activity and higher sedentary behavior than participants without mild cognitive impairment. Higher physical activity and lower sedentary behavior were associated with better Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive-Plus performance in participants without mild cognitive impairment but not in participants with probable mild cognitive impairment. This study was cross-sectional and therefore causal associations should not be inferred. In addition, the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment was not confirmed with a physician. First study to report that older adults with probable mild cognitive impairment were less active and more sedentary than their cognitively healthy peers. Objective assessments of physical activity and sedentary behavior.
    Walle'n et al. (2015); Levels and patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior in elderly people with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease. Physical Therapy To describe levels and patterns of physical activity and sedentary behaviors in elderly people with mild to moderate Parkinson's Disease. This cross-sectional study involved a free-living setting and 53 men and 42 women (mean age 73.4 years; (SD-5.7 years) with mild to moderate idiopathic Parkinson's Disease. The country was Sweden. Time spent in physical activity and sedentary behaviors were assessed for one week with accelerometers. The main finding was that approximately 75% of all time awake was spent in sedentary behaviors; 18% was spent in physical activity. The proportion of individuals meeting the goal of achieving 150 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA per week was 27%; 16% achieved 7,000 or more steps per day; participants spent 589 minutes daily in sedentary behaviors. The participants were not randomly selected; therefore, generalizability is limited. Based on objective assessment (accelerometers), described the levels and patterns of physical activity, including diurnal patterns, and estimated the extent to which physical activity recommendations were met.
    Nemoto et al. (2018); The association of single and combined factors of sedentary behavior and physical activity with subjective cognitive complaints among community-dwelling older adults: Cross-sectional study. Plos ONE To examine the association of type of sedentary behavior, physical activity, or their combination with subjective cognitive complaints among community dwelling older adults. The cross-sectional study targeted independently living individuals aged 65 years and older who resided in Tsuru, Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan (n = 5,328). Participants responded to the National Functional Survey Questionnaire (Kihon checklist) to assess subjective cognitive complaints. Do your family or friends point out your memory loss? Do you make a call by looking up phone numbers? Do you find yourself not knowing today's date? To evaluate physical activity, the Japanese version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short-version (IPAQ-SV) was conducted. Sedentary behavior time was assessed as subjective average duration of television viewing and reading books or newspapers during the last seven days. The primary findings were that moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity was significantly related with a lower risk of subjective cognitive complaints and that reading showed a dose-response relationship with subjective cognitive complaints. The combined group who reported >150 min/week physical activity and >30 min/day reading showed 60% lower subjective cognitive complaints than the combined group who reported <150 min/week physical activity and <10 min/day reading. The cross-sectional design limits causal inferences. Physical activity and sedentary behavior were assessed subjectively. Participants who developed dementia or mild cognitive impairment during the study were not necessarily completely excluded. First study to report the association of the combined effects of sedentary time and physical activity with subjective cognitive complaints; demographic variables, health behavior, and health status were included in the analyses. The data were from a complete survey with a high response rate of 79.8% and missing values were accounted for by multiple imputation.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  Psychological well-being, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Okely et al. (2019); Positive and negative well-being and objectively measured sedentary behavior in older adults: evidence from three cohorts. BMC Geriatrics To examine the association between sedentary behavior and both positive and negative effect Three prospective (N = 698) of older adults in Scotland Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior (ActivPAL)

    Validated scales for positive and negative effect, depression, and anxiety
    Sedentary behavior was associated with depression symptoms Waking time was self-reported Accelerometer determined sedentary behavior

    Validated measures of mental health
    Ku et al. (2015); Leisure-time physical activity, sedentary behaviors and subjective well-being in older adults: An eight-year longitudinal research. Social Indicators Research Examine the association between self-reported sedentary time and subjective well-being Longitudinal fixed cohort (N = 1,268) of adults aged 70 years or older in Taiwan. Self-reported leisure time in sedentary behavior

    Subjective well-being (i.e., Life Satisfaction Index)
    Television viewing, social chatting, reading, and listening to the radio were significantly associated with subjective well-being Self-reported sedentary time Longitudinal design

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  Cancer, sedentary behavior, and older adults (References from 2013–2019).
    Reference
    Author(s), Year, Title, Journal
    Hypotheses/Study Aims Research Design, Sample Size, Ages, Country Measures Primary Findings Limitations Strengths
    Maréchal et al. (2019); Effect of a mixed-exercise program on physical capacity and sedentary behavior in older adults during cancer treatments. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research To examine the impact of an intervention on increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior during cancer treatment Two-group (i.e., mixed exercise vs. stretching) pre- and post-test design (N = 14) of older patients in Canada Self-reported sedentary time

    Senior fitness test – functional performance test (i.e., chair stands, Up and Go, Arm Curl, Sit and Reach, and 6-minute walk test)
    Mixed exercise group had greater improvements in chair stands and global physical capacity scores when compared to those in the stretching group. No other differences were observed Small sample

    Sedentary behavior was not the focus
    Objective assessments of functional performance

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The purpose of the quality ratings was to assess risk of bias. As described earlier, we used the National Institute of Health ratings system for each research design [12]. Among 20 observational cohort and cross-sectional studies, three studies were rated as fair and seventeen studies were rated as good. Among the four other research designs [i.e., before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group; case-control studies; controlled intervention studies; and systematic reviews/meta-analyses], there were seven studies. Five were rated as fair, one as good, and one was rated poor—controlled intervention study. Most of the studies adjusted for confounders. Most of the studies were cross-sectional. More randomized controlled trial studies are needed.

    Each article in our review was published in a peer-reviewed journal; therefore, only one article was rated as poor. Our quality assessment of articles probably would be different if we had included the grey literature. Given the overall quality assessment of our articles, we are confident in the findings of our review. It is not likely that risk of bias compromises our major conclusions.

    Table 10.  Quality ratings of cited literature based on National Institutes of Health criteria (n = 27).
    Research design Reference Quality assessment from National Institute of Health ratings criteria (good, fair, poor)
    Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies
    Bann et al. 2015 Good
    Benka Wallén et al. 2015 Good
    Cabanas-Sanchez et al. 2018 Fair
    Chang et al. 2015 Fair
    Ekblom et al. 2015 Good
    Engeroff et al. 2018 Fair
    Ensrud et al. 2014 Good
    Figueiró et al. 2019 Good
    Gennuso et al. 2013 Good
    Gennuso et al. 2015 Good
    Jefferis et al. 2019 Good
    Joseph et al. 2016 Good
    Judice et al. 2015 Good
    Klenk et al. 2016 Good
    Ku et al. 2016 Good
    Leon-Munoz et al. 2013 Good
    Matthews et al. 2012 Good
    Nemoto et al. 2018 Good
    Okely et al. 2019 Good
    Pavey et al. 2015 Good
    Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group
    Hartman et al. 2018 Fair
    Case-Control Studies
    Falck et al. 2017 Fair
    van Alphen et al. 2016 Fair
    Controlled Intervention Studies
    Aadahl et al. 2019 Fair
    Maréchal et al. 2019 Poor
    Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    Thorp et al. 2011 Fair
    Wirth et al. 2017 Good

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    By 2030, there will be nearly one billion older adults worldwide [40]. According to Harvey et al. (2013), almost 60% of older adults reported sitting for more than four hours per day; 65% sat in front of a screen for more than three hours per day; and over 55% reported watching television more than two hours. The previous findings were based on self-report; when measured objectively, 67% of older adults were sedentary for > 8.5 hours daily [40],[41].

    The most consistent associations with increased risk between sedentary behaviors and health outcomes in older adults were: all-cause mortality, metabolic syndrome, triglycerides/high density lipoprotein cholesterol/blood glucose, HBA1C/glucose intolerance, waist circumference, and obesity/overweight. The inconsistent associations were for blood pressure, cancer, and other cardio-metabolic biomarkers. Mixed findings (positive and negative associations) were found for mental health (dementia, mild cognitive impairment, psychological well-being). A systematic review concluded that limiting sedentary time and participating in regular moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity promote healthy cognitive aging. Sedentary behavior was associated with lower cognitive performance, “although the attributable risk of sedentary time to all-cause dementia incidence is unclear” [31].

    Our findings compared to an earlier review [10] were similar for all-cause mortality, metabolic syndrome, other cardio-metabolic biomarkers, waist circumference, obesity/overweight, cancer, and mental health (dementia, mild cognitive impairment, psychological well-being). These consistent associations may be attributable to robust results, sufficient literature to draw conclusions, and/or clear outcome measures. Our findings were dissimilar for triglycerides/high density lipoprotein cholesterol/blood glucose, blood pressure, and HBA1C/glucose intolerance. The dissimilar findings may be accounted for by our recent update (i.e., different times for which studies were conducted), a limited number of studies in the area, or absence of consistent or robust results. Another possibility that merits further study is that heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, methods, and statistical approaches may explain dissimilar results.

    Rezende et al. 2014 [10] reported detrimental effects of sedentary behaviors on physical health in older adults. However, it is noteworthy that there are studies documenting positive psychological and mental effects at least for some forms of sedentary behavior [37]. Another review concluded that some sedentary behaviors (e.g., reading or use of computers) were beneficial for older adults [9]. As noted earlier, based on our review, we recommend a taxonomy of sedentary behavior for older adults to disentangle the web of seemingly discrepant findings. Further research is needed to provide greater insights.

    Based on our review and the earlier review [10], another emerging area of research for older adults is cancer and sedentary behavior; only two studies were reported. Clearly, cancer, sedentary behavior, and older adults is an understudied research area [39]. Aging is regarded as an important cause of cancer and studies show that aging and cancer together contribute to an increased risk of deconditioning [42],[43]. In addition, the combination of aging and cancer is associated with an increase in sedentary behaviors. In the context of cancer treatment such as chemotherapy, patients are more likely to adopt sedentary behaviors and decrease physical activity levels that exacerbate deconditioning which hinders recovery and wellbeing [44][46]. This cycle may be particularly evident in older populations [45][47]. Unfortunately, health care professionals recommend resting and to avoid physical activity during cancer treatments believing this strategy limits cancer-related symptoms especially cancer-related fatigue [48]. More research is required to understand better how to disrupt this health-compromising cycle and improve the health of older adults during cancer treatments.

    From another perspective, the biological pathways that underlie the associations between sedentary behavior and cancer is important [49]. In 10 of 18 articles, a review found that sedentary behavior was associated with increased colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, and prostate cancer risk and cancer mortality in women [49]. The biological pathways or mechanisms that produce the association between sedentary behavior and cancer were adiposity and metabolic dysfunction. The author recommended that reducing sedentary behavior is a viable cancer control strategy [49]. For the health outcomes reported in our systematic review, more research is needed documenting biological pathways.

    Limitations—The limitations of this review are a publication bias because we did search for non-published papers and the grey literature. We did not include technical reports, papers from government agencies and other scientific groups, conference proceedings, and unpublished manuscripts. However, we acknowledge that searching the grey literature is important because, typically, only positive, significant findings are published in peer-reviewed journals. Another limitation is that findings were not categorized by physical activity patterns and levels, age groups (e.g., old and very old - over 80 years of age), gender, racial and ethnic identity, or by dose and type of sedentary behavior. All studies should adjust for confounders. Because our systematic review was not a meta-analysis, we did not assess clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity; differences that can influence conclusions. In a narrative review, geriatric-relevant health outcomes included physical function, cognitive function, incontinence, mental health, quality of life and wellbeing as well as sleep. In our review, we did not review research related to incontinence and sleep. Another limitation is the extent to which the literature is dependent on self-report measures. More objective assessments of sedentary behaviors are recommended.

    Strengths—In spite of these limitations, our systematic review is the most recent and comprehensive study of this topic including a full description of each article and an evaluation of the quality of each article. Furthermore, we summarize the findings for twelve different health conditions ranging from mortality to mental health and then compared our findings to a previous review. Each study was evaluated for quality and risk of bias based on the National Institute of Health standardized approach for rating the quality of studies [12]. Key characteristics of each study were described and presented in both narrative and table formats.

    Future research, policy, and practice – Given the growing population of older adults and the prevalence of sedentary behavior in this population, the effects of sedentary behavior both positive and negative on health outcomes merit careful study. Worldwide, the number of dementia patients has been rapidly increasing during the last few decades, and is expected to reach over 100 million in the year 2050 [36]. Age is the greatest risk factor for dementia [31]. Effective lifestyle interventions are critical because non-pharmacological therapies can be used to treat dementia. The true efficacy of these approaches is not known [31]. Therefore, to prevent dementia or cognitive decline is an urgent, global public health crisis.

    To improve the methodological quality of future research, we recommend greater use of diaries and global position systems (GPS) (to provide a context) and accelerometers, which are regarded as a valid and reliable method for evaluating sedentary behavior. In addition, more subetaoup analyses including gender, racial and ethnic identity, and geography would improve our understanding of sedentary behavior and health outcomes in older adults. Similarly, dose-response gradients between sedentary behavior, physical activity, and health outcomes would advance the field. We recommend that future research include meta-analyses.

    As noted in previous reviews, chronic diseases and all-cause mortality and the effects of sedentary behavior are important [9],[10]. However, from a geriatric perspective, the effects of sedentary behavior on independence, quality of life, and overall impairment (e.g., mobility) are high priority concerns for older adults [9]. More research is needed in these areas.

    The next stage of research is to identify modifiable determinants of sedentary behavior among older adults to inform the development of behavior change interventions to reduce health-compromising sedentary behaviors and increase physical activity to improve the health and wellbeing of older adults. An earlier review evaluated the effectiveness of sedentary behavior interventions for older adults and reported non-significant findings [9].

    In terms of policy and practice, The United Kingdom advises those 65 years of age and older to minimize the time they spend being sedentary for extended periods [40]. Any proposed policies and practices should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effects on mental, psychological, and physical health. Policies and practices should discourage health-compromising sedentary behaviors and promote health-enhancing sedentary behaviors (i.e., for mental and psychological health) with the objective to improve the overall wellbeing of older adults.

    There is a global trend in population aging that embraces terms such as “successful aging”, “active aging,” and “healthy aging” which imply adding life to years and not just living longer (i.e., adding years to life) [37]. To achieve this objective, given the high levels of sedentary behavior among older adults, documenting the health effects of sedentary behavior is important. In our systematic review, we found that sedentary behaviors were adversely associated with six health outcomes ranging from obesity to mortality. Contrary to expectations, depending on the dose and type of sedentary behavior, older adults may benefit from particular kinds of sedentary pursuits that are stimulating and cognitively engaging. Our hope is that this review can be serve as a springboard for more rigorous studies to advance the field of sedentary behavior and health effects on older adults.



    [1] DOE (2016) Strategic Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable Bioeconomy. 56.
    [2] Lin L, Xu F, Ge X, et al. (2018) Improving the sustainability of organic waste management practices in the food-energy-water nexus: A comparative review of anaerobic digestion and composting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 89: 151-167. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.025
    [3] Daher B, Mohtar R (2012) Water, energy, and food: The Ultimate Nexus, Encyclopedia of Agricultural, Food, and Biological Engineering, Second Edition.
    [4] Albrecht TR, Crootof A, Scott CA (2018) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ Res Lett 13: 043002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6
    [5] Popp J, Lakner Z, Harangi-Rákos M, et al. (2014) The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 32: 559-578. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
    [6] Gomo FF, Macleod C, Rowan J, et al. (2018) Supporting better decisions across the nexus of water, energy and food through earth observation data: \hack\break case of the Zambezi basin. Proc Int Assoc Hydrol Sci 376: 15-23.
    [7] Belmonte BA, Benjamin MFD, Tan RR (2017) Biochar systems in the water-energy-food nexus: the emerging role of process systems engineering. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng Process Syst Eng 18: 32-37.
    [8] Hansen S, Mirkouei A (2019) Bio-Oil Upgrading Via Micro-Emulsification And Ultrasound Treatment: Examples For Analysis And Discussion, ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
    [9] Hansen S, Mirkouei A, Diaz LA (2020) A Comprehensive State-of-Technology Review for Upgrading Bio-oil to Renewable or Blended Hydrocarbon Fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev in press.
    [10] Roy P, Dias G (2017) Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 77: 59-69. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.136
    [11] Mirkouei A, Haapala KR (2015) A network model to optimize upstream and midstream biomass-to-bioenergy supply chain costs, ASME 2015 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC), MSEC2015-9355.
    [12] Mirkouei A (2016) Techno-Economic Optimization and Environmental Impact Analysis for a Mixed-Mode Upstream and Midstream Forest Biomass to Bio-Products Supply Chain.
    [13] Cha JS, Park SH, Jung S-C, et al. (2016) Production and utilization of biochar: A review. J Ind Eng Chem 40: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2016.06.002
    [14] Krajačić G, Vujanović M, Duić N, et al. (2018) Integrated approach for sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems. Energy Convers Manag 159: 398-412. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.016
    [15] Hugh McLaughlin (2016) An Overview of the current Biochar and Activated Carbon Markets : Biofuels Digest, 2016. Available from: https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/10/11/an-overview-of-the-current-biochar-and-activated-carbon-markets/.
    [16] Mirkouei A (2019) Cyber-Physical Real-time Monitoring and Control for Biomass-based Energy Production, Emerging Frontiers in Industrial and Systems Engineering: Growing Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis.
    [17] Hansen S, Mirkouei A (2018) Past Infrastructures and Future Machine Intelligence (MI) for Biofuel Production: A Review and MI-Based Framework. ASME 2018 Int Des Eng Tech Conf Comput Inf Eng Conf V004T05A022.
    [18] Mirkouei A, Kardel K (2017) Enhance Sustainability Benefits Through Scaling-up Bioenergy Production from Terrestrial and Algae Feedstocks, Proceedings of the 2017 ASME IDETC/CIE: 22nd Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference.
    [19] Mirkouei A, Haapala KR, Murthy GS, et al. (2017) Evolutionary Optimization of Bioenergy Supply Chain Cost with Uncertain Forest Biomass Quality and Availability, Proceedings of the 2016 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference H. Yang, Z. Kong, and MD Sarder, eds., May 21-24, Anaheim, California, USA.
    [20] Mirkouei A, Haapala K (2014) Integration of machine learning and mathematical programming methods into the biomass feedstock supplier selection process, Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Flex. Autom. Intell. Manuf. FAIM May, 20-23.
    [21] Biggs EM, Bruce E, Boruff B, et al. (2015) Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ Sci Policy 54: 389-397. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002
    [22] Wallington K, Cai X (2017) The Food-Energy-Water Nexus: A Framework to Address Sustainable Development in the Tropics. Trop Conserv Sci 10: 1940082917720665.
    [23] GVR (2017) Biochar Market Size, 2017. Available from: https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/biochar-market-size-worth-31461-million-by-2025-cagr-132-grand-view-research-inc-2018-05-30.
    [24] Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, van der Velde M, et al. (2011) A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144: 175-187. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015
    [25] Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337: 1-18. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5
    [26] Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, et al. (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere 99: 19-33. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071
    [27] Liu W-J, Jiang H, Yu H-Q (2015) Development of Biochar-Based Functional Materials: Toward a Sustainable Platform Carbon Material. Chem Rev 115: 12251-12285. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00195
    [28] Das O, Sarmah AK, Bhattacharyya D (2015) A sustainable and resilient approach through biochar addition in wood polymer composites. Sci Total Environ 512-513: 326-336. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.063
    [29] Carpenter AW, de Lannoy C-F, Wiesner MR (2015) Cellulose Nanomaterials in Water Treatment Technologies. Environ Sci Technol 49: 5277-5287. doi: 10.1021/es506351r
    [30] Mousa E, Wang C, Riesbeck J, et al. (2016) Biomass applications in iron and steel industry: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 65: 1247-1266. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.061
    [31] Nemati M, Simard F, Fortin J-P, et al. (2015) Potential Use of Biochar in Growing Media. Soil Sci Soc Am J 14.
    [32] Berry M, Seppalaomem O (2014) OSUAA_Biochar_MarketStudy_6_6_14.pdf.
    [33] Delaney M (2015) Northwest Biochar commercialization strategy paper, U.S. Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
    [34] Ferroukhi R, Nagpal D, Alvaro Lopez-Peña, et al. (2015) Renewable Energy in the Water, Energy and Food Nexus, IREA.
    [35] Jha P, Biswas AK, Lakaria BL, et al. (2010) Biochar in agriculture - prospects and related implications. Curr Sci 99: 1218-1225.
    [36] Jeffery S, Bezemer TM, Cornelissen G, et al. (2013) The way forward in biochar research: targeting trade-offs between the potential wins. GCB Bioenergy 7: 1-13.
    [37] Gwenzi W, Musarurwa T, Nyamugafata P, et al. (2014) Adsorption of Zn2+ and Ni2+ in a binary aqueous solution by biosorbents derived from sawdust and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Water Sci Technol 70: 1419. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.391
    [38] Yoo G, Kim H, Chen J, et al. (2014) Effects of Biochar Addition on Nitrogen Leaching and Soil Structure following Fertilizer Application to Rice Paddy Soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78: 852-860. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2013.05.0160
    [39] Bucheli TD, Bachmann HJ, Blum F, et al. (2014) On the heterogeneity of biochar and consequences for its representative sampling. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 107: 25-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2014.01.020
    [40] Gerlach A, Schmidt HP (2014) The use of biochar in cattle farming. Biochar J 2014.
    [41] Xu R, Ferrante L, Hall K, et al. (2011) Thermal self-sustainability of biochar production by pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 91: 55-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2011.01.001
    [42] Han J, Elgowainy A, Dunn JB, et al. (2013) Life cycle analysis of fuel production from fast pyrolysis of biomass. Bioresour Technol 133: 421-428. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.141
    [43] Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Bird MI (2017) The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: A review. Appl Soil Ecol 119: 156-170. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008
    [44] Biederman LA, Harpole WS (2012) Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5: 202-214.
    [45] Agegnehu G, Nelson PN, Bird MI (2016) Crop yield, plant nutrient uptake and soil physicochemical properties under organic soil amendments and nitrogen fertilization on Nitisols. Soil Tillage Res 160: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.02.003
    [46] Aldridge CA, Baker BH, Omer AR (2019) Investigation of short-term effects of winter cover crops on compaction and total soil carbon in a long-term no-till agricultural system. J Soil Water Conserv 74: 77-84. doi: 10.2489/jswc.74.1.77
    [47] Boateng AA, Mullen CA, Goldberg NM, et al. (2010) Sustainable production of bioenergy and biochar from the straw of high-biomass soybean lines via fast pyrolysis. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29: 175-183. doi: 10.1002/ep.10446
    [48] Ali I (2014) Water Treatment by Adsorption Columns: Evaluation at Ground Level. Sep Purif Rev 43: 175-205. doi: 10.1080/15422119.2012.748671
    [49] Barber ST, Yin J, Draper K, et al. (2018) Closing nutrient cycles with biochar- from filtration to fertilizer. J Clean Prod 197: 1597-1606. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.136
    [50] Shackley S, Hammond J, Gaunt J, et al. (2011) The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Manag 2: 335-356. doi: 10.4155/cmt.11.22
    [51] Sessions J, Smith D, Trippe KM, et al. (2019) Can biochar link forest restoration with commercial agriculture? Biomass Bioenergy 123: 175-185. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.015
    [52] Rosas JG, Gómez N, Cara J, et al. (2015) Assessment of sustainable biochar production for carbon abatement from vineyard residues. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 113: 239-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.011
    [53] Shackley S, Carter S, Knowles T, et al. (2012) Sustainable gasification-biochar systems? A case-study of rice-husk gasification in Cambodia, Part I: Context, chemical properties, environmental and health and safety issues. Energy Policy 42: 49-58.
    [54] Qin K, Jensen PA, Lin W, et al. (2012) Biomass gasification behavior in an entrained flow reactor: gas product distribution and soot formation. Energy Fuels 26: 5992-6002. doi: 10.1021/ef300960x
    [55] Gwenzi W, Chaukura N, Noubactep C, et al. (2017) Biochar-based water treatment systems as a potential low-cost and sustainable technology for clean water provision. J Environ Manage 197: 732-749. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.087
    [56] Zygourakis K (2017) Biochar soil amendments for increased crop yields: How to design a "designer" biochar. AIChE J 63: 5425-5437. doi: 10.1002/aic.15870
    [57] Suter GW (2013) Review papers are important and worth writing. Environ Toxicol Chem 32: 1929-1930. doi: 10.1002/etc.2316
    [58] Mirkouei A, Haapala KR, Sessions J, et al. (2017) A review and future directions in techno-economic modeling and optimization of upstream forest biomass to bio-oil supply chains. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67: 15-35. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.053
    [59] Taticchi P, Garengo P, Nudurupati SS, et al. (2014) A review of decision-support tools and performance measurement and sustainable supply chain management. Int J Prod Res 1-22.
    [60] WEF (2011) Water Security: the water-food-energy-climate nexus, Island Press.
    [61] Franz M, Schlitz N, Schumacher KP (2017) Globalization and the water-energy-food nexus - Using the global production networks approach to analyze society-environment relations. Environ Sci Policy.
    [62] Endo A, Tsurita I, Burnett K, et al. (2017) A review of the current state of research on the water, energy, and food nexus. Water Energy Food Nexus Asia-Pac Reg 11: 20-30.
    [63] Venghaus S, Hake J-F (2018) Nexus thinking in current EU policies - The interdependencies among food, energy and water resources. Environ Sci Policy.
    [64] Bazilian M, Rogner H, Howells M, et al. (2011) Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39: 7896-7906. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039
    [65] Leck H, Conway D, Bradshaw M, et al. (2015) Tracing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Description, Theory and Practice. Geogr Compass 9: 445-460. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12222
    [66] Al-Saidi M, Elagib NA (2017) Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Sci Total Environ 574: 1131-1139. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.046
    [67] Bates B, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, et al. (Eds.) (2008) Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, IPCC Secretariat.
    [68] Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. 160.
    [69] Mateo-Sagasta J, Burke J (2008) Agriculture and water quality interactions: a global overview.
    [70] Ongley ED (1996) Control of water pollution from agriculture; Chapter 1: Introduction to agricultural water pollution.
    [71] Wiedmann T (2018) Eutrophication's neglected drivers. Nat Sustain 1: 273-274. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0084-2
    [72] Yue Y, Guo WN, Lin QM, et al. (2016) Improving salt leaching in a simulated saline soil column by three biochars derived from rice straw (Oryza sativa L.), sunflower straw (Helianthus annuus), and cow manure. J Soil Water Conserv 71: 467-475.
    [73] Bell JM, Schwartz R, McInnes KJ, et al. (2018) Deficit irrigation effects on yield and yield components of grain sorghum. Agric Water Manag 203: 289-296. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.002
    [74] Wagner K (2012) Status and trends of irrigated agriculture in Texas. Spec Rep Tex Water Resour Inst Tex AM Univ Coll Stn Tex Tex Water Resour Inst.
    [75] Bordovsky JP, Mustian JT, Cranmer AM, et al. (2011) Cotton-grain sorghum rotation under extreme deficit irrigation conditions. Appl Eng Agric 27: 359-371. doi: 10.13031/2013.37079
    [76] Grafton RQ, Williams J, Perry CJ, et al. (2018) The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361: 748-750. doi: 10.1126/science.aat9314
    [77] Vadez V, Kholová J, Yadav RS, et al. (2013) Small temporal differences in water uptake among varieties of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) are critical for grain yield under terminal drought. Plant Soil 371: 447-462.
    [78] Compton M, Willis S, Rezaie B, et al. (2018) Food processing industry energy and water consumption in the Pacific northwest. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 47: 371-383. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2018.04.001
    [79] Ralph E. H. Sims (2011) Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
    [80] FAO (2018) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2018.Available from: http://www.fao.org/home/en/.
    [81] Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants 2: 15221. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2015.221
    [82] Dong X, Vuran MC, Irmak S (2013) Autonomous precision agriculture through integration of wireless underground sensor networks with center pivot irrigation systems. Ad Hoc Netw 11: 1975-1987. doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2012.06.012
    [83] Helu M, Hedberg T, Barnard Feeney A (2017) Reference architecture to integrate heterogeneous manufacturing systems for the digital thread. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol.
    [84] Vogl GW, Weiss BA, Helu M (2016) A review of diagnostic and prognostic capabilities and best practices for manufacturing. J Intell Manuf 1-17.
    [85] Wolfe ML, Ting KC, Scott N, et al. (2016) Engineering solutions for food-energy-water systems: it is more than engineering. J Environ Stud Sci 6: 172-182. doi: 10.1007/s13412-016-0363-z
    [86] Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems - A Review. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11: 403-427. doi: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5
    [87] Napolitano G, Isaac J, Bizzarri G, et al. (2010) Bioenergy and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    [88] Khan Z, Linares P, García-González J (2017) Integrating water and energy models for policy driven applications. A review of contemporary work and recommendations for future developments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67: 1123-1138.
    [89] Pate R, Hightower M, Cameron C, et al. (2007) Overview of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the emerging energy demands on Water Resources.
    [90] Scott CA, Pierce SA, Pasqualetti MJ, et al. (2011) Policy and institutional dimensions of the water-energy nexus. Sustain Biofuels 39: 6622-6630.
    [91] Hamiche AM, Stambouli AB, Flazi S (2016) A review of the water-energy nexus. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 65: 319-331. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.020
    [92] Erik Mielke, Laura Diaz Anadon, Vankatesh Narayanamurti (2010) Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion, A review of the literature for estimates of water intensity of energy-resource extraction, processing to fuels,and conversion to electricity, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
    [93] Bartos MD, Chester MV (2014) The Conservation Nexus: Valuing Interdependent Water and Energy Savings in Arizona. Environ Sci Technol 48: 2139-2149. doi: 10.1021/es4033343
    [94] Wu M, Mintz M, Wang M, et al. (2009) Water Consumption in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline. Environ Manage 44: 981. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9370-0
    [95] Ernst KM, Preston BL (2017) Adaptation opportunities and constraints in coupled systems: Evidence from the U.S. energy-water nexus. Environ Sci Policy 70: 38-45.
    [96] Liu J, Hull V, Godfray HCJ, et al. (2018) Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat Sustain 1: 466. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8
    [97] Jägerskog A, Lindström A, Björklund G, et al. (2012) Regional Options for Addressing the Water, Energy and Food Nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin AU - Granit, Jakob. Int J Water Resour Dev 28: 419-432. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2012.684307
    [98] Villarroel Walker R, Beck MB, Hall JW (2012) Water - and nutrient and energy - systems in urbanizing watersheds. Front Environ Sci Eng 6: 596-611. doi: 10.1007/s11783-012-0445-4
    [99] Siddiqi A, Anadon LD (2011) The water-energy nexus in Middle East and North Africa. Crossroads Pathw Renew Nucl Energy Policy North Afr 39: 4529-4540.
    [100] Ringler C, Bhaduri A, Lawford R (2013) The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Aquat Mar Syst 5: 617-624.
    [101] Lawford R, Bogardi J, Marx S, et al. (2013) Basin perspectives on the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus. Aquat Mar Syst 5: 607-616.
    [102] Rasul G (2014) Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: A nexus perspective from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region☆. Environ Sci Policy 39: 35-48. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.010
    [103] Stein C, Barron J, Nigussie L, et al. (2014) Advancing the water-energy-food nexus: social networks and institutional interplay in the Blue Nile, International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program.
    [104] Villarroel R, Beck MB, Hall JW, et al. (2014) The energy-water-food nexus: Strategic analysis of technologies for transforming the urban metabolism. J Environ Manage 141: 104-115. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.054
    [105] Biggs EM, Bruce E, Boruff B, et al. (2015) Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ Sci Policy 54: 389-397. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002
    [106] Conway D, van Garderen EA, Deryng D, et al. (2015) Climate and southern Africa's water-energy-food nexus. Nat Clim Change 5: 837. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2735
    [107] Daher BT, Mohtar RH (2015) Water-energy-food (WEF) Nexus Tool 2.0: guiding integrative resource planning and decision-making. Water Int 40: 748-771.
    [108] Jeswani HK, Burkinshaw R, Azapagic A (2015) Environmental sustainability issues in the food-energy-water nexus: Breakfast cereals and snacks. Sustain Prod Consum 2: 17-28. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2015.08.001
    [109] Kraucunas I, Clarke L, Dirks J, et al. (2015) Investigating the nexus of climate, energy, water, and land at decision-relevant scales: the Platform for Regional Integrated Modeling and Analysis (PRIMA). Clim Change 129: 573-588. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1064-9
    [110] Mukuve FM, Fenner RA (2015) Scale variability of water, land, and energy resource interactions and their influence on the food system in Uganda. Sustain Prod Consum 2: 79-95. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2015.07.009
    [111] Ozturk I (2015) Sustainability in the food-energy-water nexus: Evidence from BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) countries. Energy 93: 999-1010. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.104
    [112] Endo A, Burnett K, Orencio P, et al. (2015) Methods of the water-energy-food nexus. Water 7: 5806-5830. doi: 10.3390/w7105806
    [113] Middleton C, Allouche J, Gyawali D, et al. (2015) The Rise and Implications of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in Southeast Asia through an Environmental Justice Lens.
    [114] Villamayor-Tomas S, Grundmann P, Epstein G, et al. (2015) The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus through the Lenses of the Value Chain and the Institutional Analysis and Development Frameworks. 8: 21.
    [115] Keskinen M, Someth P, Salmivaara A, et al. (2015) Water-Energy-Food Nexus in a Transboundary River Basin: The Case of Tonle Sap Lake, Mekong River Basin.
    [116] Garcia DJ, You F (2016) The water-energy-food nexus and process systems engineering: A new focus. 12th Int Symp Process Syst Eng 25th Eur Symp Comput Aided Process Eng PSE-2015ESCAPE-25 31 May - 4 June 2015 Cph Den 91: 49-67.
    [117] Rasul G (2016) Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ Dev 18: 14-25. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001
    [118] De Laurentiis V, Hunt D, Rogers C (2016) Overcoming food security challenges within an energy/water/food nexus (EWFN) approach. Sustainability 8: 95. doi: 10.3390/su8010095
    [119] Cairns R, Krzywoszynska A (2016) Anatomy of a buzzword: The emergence of 'the water-energy-food nexus' in UK natural resource debates. Environ Sci Policy 64: 164-170. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007
    [120] Yang YE, Wi S, Ray PA, et al. (2016) The future nexus of the Brahmaputra River Basin: climate, water, energy and food trajectories. Glob Environ Change 37: 16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.002
    [121] de Strasser L, Lipponen A, Howells M, et al. (2016) A methodology to assess the water energy food ecosystems nexus in transboundary river basins. Water 8: 59. doi: 10.3390/w8020059
    [122] Fasel M, Bréthaut C, Rouholahnejad E, et al. (2016) Blue water scarcity in the Black Sea catchment: Identifying key actors in the water-ecosystem-energy-food nexus. Environ Sci Policy 66: 140-150. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.004
    [123] Perrone D, Hornberger G (2016) Frontiers of the food-energy-water trilemma: Sri Lanka as a microcosm of tradeoffs. Environ Res Lett 11: 014005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014005
    [124] Mortensen JG, González-Pinzón R, Dahm CN, et al. (2016) Advancing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus: Closing Nutrient Loops in Arid River Corridors. Environ Sci Technol 50: 8485-8496. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01351
    [125] Wichelns D (2017) The water-energy-food nexus: Is the increasing attention warranted, from either a research or policy perspective? Environ Sci Policy 69: 113-123. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.018
    [126] Endo A, Tsurita I, Burnett K, et al. (2017) A review of the current state of research on the water, energy, and food nexus. Water Energy Food Nexus Asia-Pac Reg 11: 20-30.
    [127] Howarth C, Monasterolo I (2017) Opportunities for knowledge co-production across the energy-food-water nexus: Making interdisciplinary approaches work for better climate decision making. Environ Sci Policy 75: 103-110. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.019
    [128] Flammini A, Puri M, Pluschke L, et al. (2014) Walking the nexus talk: assessing the water-energy-food nexus in the context of the sustainable energy for all initiative, Rome, Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    [129] Pahl-Wostl C (2019) Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: A multi-level coordination challenge. Environ Sci Policy 92: 356-367. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.017
    [130] El Gafy I, Grigg N, Reagan W (2017) Dynamic Behaviour of the Water-Food-Energy Nexus: Focus on Crop Production and Consumption. Irrig Drain 66: 19-33. doi: 10.1002/ird.2060
    [131] Wicaksono A, Jeong G, Kang D (2017) Water, energy, and food nexus: Review of global implementation and simulation model development.
    [132] Dhaubanjar S, Davidsen C, Bauer-Gottwein P (2017) Multi-Objective Optimization for Analysis of Changing Trade-Offs in the Nepalese Water-Energy-Food Nexus with Hydropower Development. Water 9.
    [133] Hussien WA, Memon FA, Savic DA (2017) An integrated model to evaluate water-energy-food nexus at a household scale. Environ Model Softw 93: 366-380. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.034
    [134] Johnson OW, Karlberg L (2017) Co-exploring the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Facilitating Dialogue through Participatory Scenario Building. Front Environ Sci 5: 24. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00024
    [135] White DJ, Hubacek K, Feng K, et al. (2018) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus in East Asia: A tele-connected value chain analysis using inter-regional input-output analysis. Appl Energy 210: 550-567. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.159
    [136] Albrecht TR, Crootof A, Scott CA (2018) The water-energy-food nexus: A comprehensive review of nexus-specific methods. Environ Res Lett.
    [137] Siddiqi A, Anadon LD (2011) The water-energy nexus in Middle East and North Africa. Crossroads Pathw Renew Nucl Energy Policy North Afr 39: 4529-4540.
    [138] Villarroel Walker R, Beck MB, Hall JW (2012) Water - and nutrient and energy - systems in urbanizing watersheds. Front Environ Sci Eng 6: 596-611. doi: 10.1007/s11783-012-0445-4
    [139] Ringler C, Bhaduri A, Lawford R (2013) The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Aquat Mar Syst 5: 617-624.
    [140] Rasul G (2016) Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ Dev 18: 14-25. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001
    [141] Wichelns D (2017) The water-energy-food nexus: Is the increasing attention warranted, from either a research or policy perspective? Environ Sci Policy 69: 113-123. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.018
    [142] White DJ, Hubacek K, Feng K, et al. (2018) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus in East Asia: A tele-connected value chain analysis using inter-regional input-output analysis. Appl Energy 210: 550-567. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.159
    [143] Qambrani NA, Rahman MdM, Won S, et al. (2017) Biochar properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79: 255-273. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.057
    [144] Bruun EW, Müller-Stöver D, Ambus P, et al. (2011) Application of biochar to soil and N2O emissions: potential effects of blending fast-pyrolysis biochar with anaerobically digested slurry. Eur J Soil Sci 62: 581-589. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01377.x
    [145] Laird DA (2008) The Charcoal Vision: A Win-Win-Win Scenario for Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, while Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100: 178-181. doi: 10.2134/agronj2007.0161
    [146] Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, et al. (2016) Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of applying biochar to soil: Current knowledge and future research directions. Environ Int 87: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.018
    [147] Vanholme B, Desmet T, Ronsse F, et al. (2013) Towards a carbon-negative sustainable bio-based economy. Front Plant Sci 4: 174.
    [148] Tan Z, Lin CSK, Ji X, et al. (2017) Returning biochar to fields: A review. Appl Soil Ecol 116: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.03.017
    [149] Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, et al. (2011) A review of biochars' potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159: 3269-3282. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.023
    [150] Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for Environmental Management: An Introduction. 12.
    [151] Mohan D, Pittman Charles U, Steele PH (2006) Pyrolysis of Wood/Biomass for Bio-oil:  A Critical Review. Energy Fuels 20: 848-889. doi: 10.1021/ef0502397
    [152] Kong S-H, Loh S-K, Bachmann RT, et al. (2014) Biochar from oil palm biomass: A review of its potential and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39: 729-739. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.107
    [153] Qian K, Kumar A, Zhang H, et al. (2015) Recent advances in utilization of biochar. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42: 1055-1064. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.074
    [154] Shea EC (2014) Adaptive management: The cornerstone of climate-smart agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv 69: 198A-199A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.69.6.198A
    [155] Tenenbaum DJ (2009) Biochar: Carbon Mitigation from the Ground Up. Environ Health Perspect 117: A70-A73.
    [156] Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, et al. (2006) Black Carbon Increases Cation Exchange Capacity in Soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70.
    [157] Jeffery S, Bezemer TM, Cornelissen G, et al. (2013) The way forward in biochar research: targeting trade-offs between the potential wins. GCB Bioenergy 7: 1-13.
    [158] Taha SM, Amer ME, Elmarsafy AE, et al. (2014) Adsorption of 15 different pesticides on untreated and phosphoric acid treated biochar and charcoal from water. J Environ Chem Eng 2: 2013-2025. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2014.09.001
    [159] Taha SM, Amer ME, Elmarsafy AE, et al. (2014) Adsorption of 15 different pesticides on untreated and phosphoric acid treated biochar and charcoal from water. J Environ Chem Eng 2: 2013-2025. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2014.09.001
    [160] Liu J, Schulz H, Brandl S, et al. (2012) Short-term effect of biochar and compost on soil fertility and water status of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under field conditions. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175: 698-707. doi: 10.1002/jpln.201100172
    [161] Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, et al. (2010) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327: 235-246. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x
    [162] Kookana RS, Sarmah AK, Van Zwieten L, et al. (2011) Chapter three - Biochar Application to Soil: Agronomic and Environmental Benefits and Unintended Consequences, In: Sparks DL (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, Academic Press, 103-143.
    [163] Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, et al. (2010) Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333: 117-128. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0327-0
    [164] Mohammadi A, Cowie AL, Mai TLA, et al. (2017) Climate-change and health effects of using rice husk for biochar-compost: Comparing three pyrolysis systems. J Clean Prod 162: 260-272. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.026
    [165] Mohammadi A, Cowie A, Mai TLA, et al. (2016) Biochar use for climate-change mitigation in rice cropping systems. J Clean Prod 116: 61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.083
    [166] Mohammadi A, Cowie A, Mai TLA, et al. (2016) Quantifying the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of utilising straw biochar and enriched biochar. Energy Procedia 97: 254-261. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.069
    [167] Agegnehu G, Bass AM, Nelson PN, et al. (2016) Benefits of biochar, compost and biochar-compost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Sci Total Environ 543: 295-306. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054
    [168] Schimmelpfennig S, Glaser B (2012) One Step Forward toward Characterization: Some Important Material Properties to Distinguish Biochars. J Environ Qual 41: 1001-1013. doi: 10.2134/jeq2011.0146
    [169] Kloss S, Zehetner F, Wimmer B, et al. (2013) Biochar application to temperate soils: Effects on soil fertility and crop growth under greenhouse conditions. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177: 3-15.
    [170] Zhou H, Zhang D, Wang P, et al. (2017) Changes in microbial biomass and the metabolic quotient with biochar addition to agricultural soils: A Meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 239: 80-89. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.006
    [171] Burns RG, DeForest JL, Marxsen J, et al. (2013) Soil enzymes in a changing environment: current knowledge and future directions. Soil Biol Biochem 58: 216-234. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.009
    [172] Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, et al. (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota - A review. Soil Biol Biochem 43: 1812-1836. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
    [173] Caroline A, Debode J, Vandecasteele B, et al. (2016) Biological, physicochemical and plant health responses in lettuce and strawberry in soil or peat amended with biochar. Appl Soil Ecol 107: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.05.001
    [174] Kolton M, Graber ER, Tsehansky L, et al. (2017) Biochar-stimulated plant performance is strongly linked to microbial diversity and metabolic potential in the rhizosphere. New Phytol 213: 1393-1404. doi: 10.1111/nph.14253
    [175] Graber ER, Frenkel O, Jaiswal AK, et al. (2014) How may biochar influence severity of diseases caused by soilborne pathogens? Carbon Manag 5: 169-183. doi: 10.1080/17583004.2014.913360
    [176] Jaiswal AK, Frenkel O, Elad Y, et al. (2015) Non-monotonic influence of biochar dose on bean seedling growth and susceptibility to Rhizoctonia solani: the "Shifted R max-Effect". Plant Soil 395: 125-140. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2331-2
    [177] Zhu X, Chen B, Zhu L, et al. (2017) Effects and mechanisms of biochar-microbe interactions in soil improvement and pollution remediation: a review. Environ Pollut 227: 98-115. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.032
    [178] Lal R, Smith P, Jungkunst HF, et al. (2018) The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J Soil Water Conserv 73: 145A-152A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A
    [179] Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergström I, et al. (2011) Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity - Results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140: 309-313. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.005
    [180] Bu XL, Su J, Xue JH, et al. (2019) Effect of rice husk biochar addition on nutrient leaching and microbial properties of Calcaric Cambisols. J Soil Water Conserv 74: 172-179. doi: 10.2489/jswc.74.2.172
    [181] Uchimiya M, Lima IM, Klasson KT, et al. (2010) Contaminant immobilization and nutrient release by biochar soil amendment: Roles of natural organic matter. Chemosphere 80: 935-940. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.05.020
    [182] Xu S, Adhikari D, Huang R, et al. (2016) Biochar-facilitated microbial reduction of hematite. Environ Sci Technol 50: 2389-2395. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05517
    [183] Downie A, Munroe P, Cowie A, et al. (2012) Biochar as a Geoengineering Climate Solution: Hazard Identification and Risk Management. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42: 225-250. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2010.507980
    [184] Campbell JL, Sessions J, Smith D, et al. (2018) Potential carbon storage in biochar made from logging residue: Basic principles and Southern Oregon case studies. PLOS ONE 13: e0203475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203475
    [185] Creamer AE, Gao B, Zhang M (2014) Carbon dioxide capture using biochar produced from sugarcane bagasse and hickory wood. Chem Eng J 249: 174-179. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.03.105
    [186] Hasler K, Bröring S, Omta SWF, et al. (2015) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different fertilizer product types. Eur J Agron 69: 41-51. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.06.001
    [187] Duku MH, Gu S, Hagan EB (2011) Biochar production potential in Ghana-A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15: 3539-3551. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.010
    [188] Lee JW, Hawkins B, Day DM, et al. (2010) Sustainability: the capacity of smokeless biomass pyrolysis for energy production, global carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Environ Sci 3: 1695-1705. doi: 10.1039/c004561f
    [189] Yang Q, Han F, Chen Y, et al. (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions of a biomass-based pyrolysis plant in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53: 1580-1590. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.049
    [190] Mirkouei A, Haapala KR, Sessions J, et al. (2016) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions for sustainable bio-oil production using a mixed supply chain, ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V004T05A031.
    [191] Dougherty B (2016) Biochar as a cover for dairy manure lagoons: reducing odor and gas emissions while capturing nutrients, Oregon State University.
    [192] Stetina K (2017) Control of Fecal Malodor by Adsorption onto Biochar.
    [193] Tsutomu I, Asada T, Kuniaki K, et al. (2004) Comparison of Removal Efficiencies for Ammonia and Amine Gases between Woody Charcoal and Activated Carbon. J Health Sci - J Health SCI 50: 148-153.
    [194] Parham J, Deng S, Raun W, et al. (2002) Long-term cattle manure application in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 35: 328-337. doi: 10.1007/s00374-002-0476-2
    [195] Gasser JKR (1987) The future of animal manures as fertilizer or waste, In: Van Der Meer HG, Unwin RJ, Van Dijk TA, et al. (Eds.), Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops. Fertilizer or Waste? Proceedings of an International Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 31 August-3 September 1987, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 259-278.
    [196] Kleinman PJ, Sharpley AN, Wolf AM, et al. (2002) Measuring water-extractable phosphorus in manure as an indicator of phosphorus in runoff. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66: 2009-2015. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.2009
    [197] Sharpley A, Moyer B (2000) Phosphorus forms in manure and compost and their release during simulated rainfall. J Environ Qual 29: 1462-1469.
    [198] Heuer H, Schmitt H, Smalla K (2011) Antibiotic resistance gene spread due to manure application on agricultural fields. Curr Opin Microbiol 14: 236-243. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2011.04.009
    [199] Spencer JL, Guan J (2004) Public Health Implications Related to Spread of Pathogens in Manure From Livestock and Poultry Operations, In: Spencer JFT, Ragout de Spencer AL (Eds.), Public Health Microbiology: Methods and Protocols, Totowa, NJ, Humana Press, 503-515.
    [200] You Y, Silbergeld EK (2014) Learning from agriculture: understanding low-dose antimicrobials as drivers of resistome expansion. Front Microbiol 5: 284.
    [201] Casey JA, Curriero FC, Cosgrove SE, et al. (2013) High-density livestock operations, crop field application of manure, and risk of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in Pennsylvania. JAMA Intern Med 173: 1980-1990. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10408
    [202] Manyi-Loh CE, Mamphweli SN, Meyer EL, et al. (2016) An Overview of the Control of Bacterial Pathogens in Cattle Manure. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13: 843. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13090843
    [203] Nicholson FA, Groves SJ, Chambers BJ (2005) Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresour Technol 96: 135-143. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.030
    [204] Qiu M, Sun K, Jin J, et al. (2014) Properties of the plant- and manure-derived biochars and their sorption of dibutyl phthalate and phenanthrene. Sci Rep 4: 5295.
    [205] Batista EMCC, Shultz J, Matos TTS, et al. (2018) Effect of surface and porosity of biochar on water holding capacity aiming indirectly at preservation of the Amazon biome. Sci Rep 8: 10677. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28794-z
    [206] Brown TR, Thilakaratne R, Brown RC, et al. (2013) Techno-economic analysis of biomass to transportation fuels and electricity via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing. Fuel 106: 463-469. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.11.029
    [207] Huang Y-F, Syu F-S, Chiueh P-T, et al. (2013) Life cycle assessment of biochar cofiring with coal. Bioresour Technol 131: 166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.123
    [208] Bergman PCA, Boersma AR, Zwart RWR, et al. (2005) Torrefaction for biomass co-firing in existing coal-fired power stations, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands.
    [209] Abdullah H, Wu H (2009) Biochar as a Fuel: 1. Properties and Grindability of Biochars Produced from the Pyrolysis of Mallee Wood under Slow-Heating Conditions. Energy Fuels 23: 4174-4181.
    [210] Yang X, Wang H, Strong P, et al. (2017) Thermal properties of biochars derived from waste biomass generated by agricultural and forestry sectors. Energies 10: 469. doi: 10.3390/en10040469
    [211] Engineering ToolBox (2003) Classification of Coal, 2003.Available from: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/classification-coal-d_164.html.
    [212] Vikrant K, Kim K-H, Ok YS, et al. (2018) Engineered/designer biochar for the removal of phosphate in water and wastewater. Sci Total Environ 616-617: 1242-1260. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.193
    [213] Tan X, Liu Y, Gu Y, et al. (2016) Biochar-based nano-composites for the decontamination of wastewater: A review. Bioresour Technol 212: 318-333. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.093
    [214] Sizmur T, Fresno T, Akgül G, et al. (2017) Biochar modification to enhance sorption of inorganics from water. Spec Issue Biochar Prod Charact Appl - Soil Appl 246: 34-47.
    [215] Husk BR, Sanchez JS, Anderson BC, et al. (2018) Removal of phosphorus from agricultural subsurface drainage water with woodchip and mixed-media bioreactors. J Soil Water Conserv 73: 265-275. doi: 10.2489/jswc.73.3.265
    [216] Inyang MI, Gao B, Yao Y, et al. (2016) A review of biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy metal removal. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 46: 406-433. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2015.1096880
    [217] Jing X-R, Wang Y-Y, Liu W-J, et al. (2014) Enhanced adsorption performance of tetracycline in aqueous solutions by methanol-modified biochar. Chem Eng J 248: 168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.03.006
    [218] Regmi P, Garcia Moscoso JL, Kumar S, et al. (2012) Removal of copper and cadmium from aqueous solution using switchgrass biochar produced via hydrothermal carbonization process. J Environ Manage 109: 61-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.047
    [219] Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, et al. (2016) Progress in the preparation and application of modified biochar for improved contaminant removal from water and wastewater. Bioresour Technol 214: 836-851. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.057
    [220] DeBoe G, Bock E, Stephenson K, et al. (2017) Nutrient biofilters in the Virginia Coastal Plain: Nitrogen removal, cost, and potential adoption pathways. J Soil Water Conserv 72: 139-149. doi: 10.2489/jswc.72.2.139
    [221] Cao X, Ma L, Gao B, et al. (2009) Dairy-Manure Derived Biochar Effectively Sorbs Lead and Atrazine. Environ Sci Technol 43: 3285-3291. doi: 10.1021/es803092k
    [222] Xu X, Cheng K, Wu H, et al. (2019) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in crop production with biochar soil amendment-a carbon footprint assessment for cross-site field experiments from China. GCB Bioenergy 11: 592-605. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12561
    [223] Wijitkosum S, Jiwnok P, UNISEARCH C (2019) Effect of biochar on Chinese kale and carbon storage in an agricultural area on a high rise building.
    [224] Shaheen A, Turaib Ali Bukhari S (2018) Potential of sawdust and corn cobs derived biochar to improve soil aggregate stability, water retention, and crop yield of degraded sandy loam soil. J Plant Nutr 41: 2673-2682. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2018.1509092
    [225] Sarma B, Farooq M, Gogoi N, et al. (2018) Soil organic carbon dynamics in wheat-Green gram crop rotation amended with vermicompost and biochar in combination with inorganic fertilizers: A comparative study. J Clean Prod 201: 471-480. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.004
    [226] Hersh B, Mirkouei A (2019) Life Cycle Assessment of Pyrolysis-Derived Biochar from Organic Wastes and Advanced Feedstocks, Proceedings of the ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferencesand Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC2019-97896.
    [227] Uusitalo V, Leino M (2019) Neutralizing global warming impacts of crop production using biochar from side flows and buffer zones: A case study of oat production in the boreal climate zone. J Clean Prod 227: 48-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.175
    [228] Thers H, Djomo SN, Elsgaard L, et al. (2019) Biochar potentially mitigates greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of oilseed rape for biodiesel. Sci Total Environ 671: 180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.257
    [229] Alotaibi KD, Schoenau JJ (2019) Addition of Biochar to a Sandy Desert Soil: Effect on Crop Growth, Water Retention and Selected Properties. Agronomy 9: 327. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9060327
    [230] Wang D, Li C, Parikh SJ, et al. (2019) Impact of biochar on water retention of two agricultural soils-A multi-scale analysis. Geoderma 340: 185-191. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.012
    [231] Ding Y, Liu Y, Liu S, et al. (2017) Potential Benefits from Biochar Application for Agricultural Use: A Review. Pedosphere.
    [232] Wang L, Li L, Cheng K, et al. (2018) An assessment of emergy, energy, and cost-benefits of grain production over 6 years following a biochar amendment in a rice paddy from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25: 9683-9696. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-1245-6
    [233] Shahzad K, Abid M, Sintim HY (2018) Wheat productivity and economic implications of biochar and inorganic nitrogen application. Agron J 110: 2259-2267. doi: 10.2134/agronj2018.01.0055
    [234] Jalal F, Arif M, Ahmad I, et al. (2018) Increasing Farm Productivity and Soil Fertility on Sustainable Basis Through "Summer Gap" Utilization with Biochar and Legumes. Gesunde Pflanz 70: 45-53. doi: 10.1007/s10343-017-0412-x
    [235] Mohammadi A, Cowie AL, Cacho O, et al. (2017) Biochar addition in rice farming systems: Economic and energy benefits. Energy 140: 415-425. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.116
    [236] El-Naggar A, Lee SS, Rinklebe J, et al. (2019) Biochar application to low fertility soils: A review of current status, and future prospects. Geoderma 337: 536-554. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.09.034
    [237] Al-Wabel MI, Hussain Q, Usman AR, et al. (2018) Impact of biochar properties on soil conditions and agricultural sustainability: a review. Land Degrad Dev 29: 2124-2161. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2829
    [238] Robb S, Dargusch P (2018) A financial analysis and life-cycle carbon emissions assessment of oil palm waste biochar exports from Indonesia for use in Australian broad-acre agriculture. Carbon Manag 9: 105-114. doi: 10.1080/17583004.2018.1435958
    [239] Dai L, Li H, Tan F, et al. (2016) Biochar: a potential route for recycling of phosphorus in agricultural residues. Gcb Bioenergy 8: 852-858. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12365
    [240] Munoz C, Gongora S, Zagal E (2016) Use of biochar as a soil amendment: a brief review. Chil J Agric Anim Sci Ex Agro-Cienc 32: 37-47.
    [241] Li W (2018) Investigating the development of the bioproducts production platform from a techno-economic and environmental perspective.
    [242] Ji C, Cheng K, Nayak D, et al. (2018) Environmental and economic assessment of crop residue competitive utilization for biochar, briquette fuel and combined heat and power generation. J Clean Prod 192: 916-923. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.026
    [243] Aller DM, Archontoulis SV, Zhang W, et al. (2018) Long term biochar effects on corn yield, soil quality and profitability in the US Midwest. Field Crops Res 227: 30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.07.012
    [244] Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, et al. (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1: 56. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1053
    [245] Mohan D, Sarswat A, Ok YS, et al. (2014) Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent - A critical review. Spec Issue Biosorption 160: 191-202.
    [246] Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, et al. (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1: 56. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1053
    [247] Mohan D, Sarswat A, Ok YS, et al. (2014) Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent - A critical review. Spec Issue Biosorption 160: 191-202.
    [248] Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, et al. (2011) A review of biochars' potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159: 3269-3282. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.023
    [249] Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, et al. (2010) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327: 235-246. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x
    [250] Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, et al. (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158: 443-449. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013
    [251] Steinbeiss S, Gleixner G, Antonietti M (2009) Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 41: 1301-1310. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.03.016
    [252] Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, et al. (2009) Review of the pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 3: 547-562. doi: 10.1002/bbb.169
    [253] Kookana RS, Sarmah AK, Van Zwieten L, et al. (2011) Chapter three - Biochar Application to Soil: Agronomic and Environmental Benefits and Unintended Consequences, In: Sparks DL (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, Academic Press, 103-143.
    [254] Regmi P, Garcia Moscoso JL, Kumar S, et al. (2012) Removal of copper and cadmium from aqueous solution using switchgrass biochar produced via hydrothermal carbonization process. J Environ Manage 109: 61-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.047
    [255] Méndez A, Gómez A, Paz-Ferreiro J, et al. (2012) Effects of sewage sludge biochar on plant metal availability after application to a Mediterranean soil. Chemosphere 89: 1354-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.092
    [256] Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, et al. (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158: 443-449. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013
    [257] Steinbeiss S, Gleixner G, Antonietti M (2009) Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 41: 1301-1310. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.03.016
    [258] Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, et al. (2009) Review of the pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 3: 547-562. doi: 10.1002/bbb.169
    [259] Méndez A, Gómez A, Paz-Ferreiro J, et al. (2012) Effects of sewage sludge biochar on plant metal availability after application to a Mediterranean soil. Chemosphere 89: 1354-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.092
    [260] Hansen S, Mirkouei A (2019) Prototyping of a Laboratory-scale Cyclone Separator for Biofuel Production from Biomass Feedstocks Using a Fused Deposition Modeling Printer, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) Conference Proceedings.
    [261] Hansen S, Mirkouei A, Xian M (2019) Cyber-Physical Control and Optimization for Biofuel 4.0.Proc 2019 IISE Annu Conf H.E. Romeijn, A Schaefer, R. Thomas, eds.
    [262] Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P (2016) Effect of process parameters on production of biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55: 467-481. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.122
    [263] Bis Z, Koby\lecki R, Ścis\lowska M, et al. (2018) Biochar-Potential tool to combat climate change and drought. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 18: 441-453. doi: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.11.005
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. TARRAH MITCHELL, KELSEY BORNER, JONATHAN FINCH, JACQUELINE KERR, JORDAN A. CARLSON, Using Activity Monitors to Measure Sit-to-Stand Transitions in Overweight/Obese Youth, 2017, 49, 0195-9131, 1592, 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001266
    2. QU TANG, DINESH JOHN, BINOD THAPA-CHHETRY, DIEGO JOSE ARGUELLO, STEPHEN INTILLE, Posture and Physical Activity Detection: Impact of Number of Sensors and Feature Type, 2020, 52, 1530-0315, 1834, 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002306
    3. Anna G.M. Rojer, Keenan A. Ramsey, Marijke C. Trappenburg, Natascha M. van Rijssen, René H.J. Otten, Martijn W. Heymans, Mirjam Pijnappels, Carel G.M. Meskers, Andrea B. Maier, Instrumented measures of sedentary behaviour and physical activity are associated with mortality in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis, 2020, 61, 15681637, 101061, 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101061
    4. Roman P. Kuster, Daniel Baumgartner, Maria Hagströmer, Wilhelmus J.A. Grooten, Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior? A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types, 2020, 3, 2575-6605, 274, 10.1123/jmpb.2019-0060
    5. Saejong Park, Mihyun Lee, Validation of Physical Activity Measured by Accelerometers Worn on Waist and Wrist, 2017, 56, 1738-964X, 563, 10.23949/kjpe.2017.07.56.4.38
    6. Gil Boudet, Pierre Chausse, David Thivel, Sylvie Rousset, Martial Mermillod, Julien S. Baker, Lenise M. Parreira, Yolande Esquirol, Martine Duclos, Frédéric Dutheil, How to Measure Sedentary Behavior at Work?, 2019, 7, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00167
    7. E. J. Smits, E. A. H. Winkler, G. N. Healy, P. M. Dall, M. H. Granat, P. W. Hodges, Comparison of single- and dual-monitor approaches to differentiate sitting from lying in free-living conditions, 2018, 28, 09057188, 1888, 10.1111/sms.13203
    8. Nitin Nair, Chinchu Thomas, Dinesh Babu Jayagopi, 2018, Human Activity Recognition Using Temporal Convolutional Network, 9781450364874, 1, 10.1145/3266157.3266221
    9. Vahid Farrahi, Maisa Niemela, Petra Tjurin, Maarit Kangas, Raija Korpelainen, Timo Jamsa, Evaluating and Enhancing the Generalization Performance of Machine Learning Models for Physical Activity Intensity Prediction From Raw Acceleration Data, 2020, 24, 2168-2194, 27, 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2917565
    10. Abdul Hamid, Michael J. Duncan, Emma L. J. Eyre, Yanguo Jing, Predicting children’s energy expenditure during physical activity using deep learning and wearable sensor data, 2020, 1746-1391, 1, 10.1080/17461391.2020.1789749
    11. Alexander H.K. Montoye, James M. Pivarnik, Lanay M. Mudd, Subir Biswas, Karin A. Pfeiffer, Evaluation of the activPAL accelerometer for physical activity and energy expenditure estimation in a semi-structured setting, 2017, 20, 14402440, 1003, 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.04.011
    12. Anantha Narayanan, Farzanah Desai, Tom Stewart, Scott Duncan, Lisa Mackay, Application of Raw Accelerometer Data and Machine-Learning Techniques to Characterize Human Movement Behavior: A Systematic Scoping Review, 2020, 17, 1543-3080, 360, 10.1123/jpah.2019-0088
    13. Jesus D. Ceron, Diego M. Lopez, Gustavo A. Ramirez, A mobile system for sedentary behaviors classification based on accelerometer and location data, 2017, 92-93, 01663615, 25, 10.1016/j.compind.2017.06.005
    14. Vahid Farrahi, Maisa Niemelä, Maarit Kangas, Raija Korpelainen, Timo Jämsä, Calibration and validation of accelerometer-based activity monitors: A systematic review of machine-learning approaches, 2019, 68, 09666362, 285, 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.12.003
    15. Hanneke C. van Dijk-Huisman, Wouter Bijnens, Rachel Senden, Johannes M. N. Essers, Kenneth Meijer, Jos Aarts, Antoine F. Lenssen, Optimization and Validation of a Classification Algorithm for Assessment of Physical Activity in Hospitalized Patients, 2021, 21, 1424-8220, 1652, 10.3390/s21051652
    16. Anis Davoudi, Kumar Rohit Malhotra, Benjamin Shickel, Scott Siegel, Seth Williams, Matthew Ruppert, Emel Bihorac, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Patrick J. Tighe, Azra Bihorac, Parisa Rashidi, Intelligent ICU for Autonomous Patient Monitoring Using Pervasive Sensing and Deep Learning, 2019, 9, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-019-44004-w
    17. Rashmika Nawaratne, Damminda Alahakoon, Daswin De Silva, Paul D O’Halloran, Alexander HK Montoye, Kiera Staley, Matthew Nicholson, Michael IC Kingsley, Deep Learning to Predict Energy Expenditure and Activity Intensity in Free Living Conditions using Wrist-specific Accelerometry, 2021, 39, 0264-0414, 683, 10.1080/02640414.2020.1841394
    18. Michael I.C. Kingsley, Rashmika Nawaratne, Paul D. O’Halloran, Alexander H.K. Montoye, Damminda Alahakoon, Daswin De Silva, Kiera Staley, Matthew Nicholson, Wrist-specific accelerometry methods for estimating free-living physical activity, 2019, 22, 14402440, 677, 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.12.003
    19. Katja Krustrup Pedersen, Esben Lykke Skovgaard, Ryan Larsen, Mikkel Stengaard, Søren Sørensen, Kristian Overgaard, The Applicability of Thigh-Worn vs. Hip-Worn ActiGraph Accelerometers During Walking and Running, 2019, 2, 2575-6605, 209, 10.1123/jmpb.2018-0043
    20. Alexander H. K. Montoye, Bradford S. Westgate, Morgan R. Fonley, Karin A. Pfeiffer, Cross-validation and out-of-sample testing of physical activity intensity predictions with a wrist-worn accelerometer, 2018, 124, 8750-7587, 1284, 10.1152/japplphysiol.00760.2017
    21. Jennifer L. Huberty, Jeni L. Matthews, Meynard Toledo, Lindsay Smith, Catherine L. Jarrett, Benjamin Duncan, Matthew P. Buman, Vinyasa Flow: Metabolic Cost and Validation of Hip- and Wrist-Worn Wearable Sensors, 2018, 1, 2575-6605, 174, 10.1123/jmpb.2017-0010
    22. Li-Tang Tsai, Eleanor Boyle, Jan C. Brønd, Gry Kock, Mathias Skjødt, Lars G. Hvid, Paolo Caserotti, Associations between objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and time in bed among 75+ community-dwelling Danish older adults, 2021, 21, 1471-2318, 10.1186/s12877-020-01856-6
    23. Joost Oomen, Dennis Arts, Michel Sperling, Steven Vos, A stepwise science-industry collaboration to optimize the calculation of energy expenditure during walking and running with a consumer-based activity device, 2019, 56, 0160791X, 1, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.09.001
    24. Marco Giurgiu, Johannes B.J. Bussmann, Holger Hill, Bastian Anedda, Marcel Kronenwett, Elena D. Koch, Ulrich W. Ebner-Priemer, Markus Reichert, Validating Accelerometers for the Assessment of Body Position and Sedentary Behavior, 2020, 3, 2575-6605, 253, 10.1123/jmpb.2019-0068
    25. Udeni Jayasinghe, William S. Harwin, Faustina Hwang, Comparing Clothing-Mounted Sensors with Wearable Sensors for Movement Analysis and Activity Classification, 2019, 20, 1424-8220, 82, 10.3390/s20010082
    26. ALEXANDER H. K. MONTOYE, M. BENJAMIN NELSON, JOSHUA M. BOCK, MARY T. IMBODEN, LEONARD A. KAMINSKY, KELLY A. MACKINTOSH, MELITTA A. MCNARRY, KARIN A. PFEIFFER, Raw and Count Data Comparability of Hip-Worn ActiGraph GT3X+ and Link Accelerometers, 2018, 50, 0195-9131, 1103, 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001534
    27. Alexander H. K. Montoye, Scott A. Conger, Christopher P. Connolly, Mary T. Imboden, M. Benjamin Nelson, Josh M. Bock, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Validation of Accelerometer-Based Energy Expenditure Prediction Models in Structured and Simulated Free-Living Settings, 2017, 21, 1091-367X, 223, 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1337638
    28. Justin Aunger, Janelle Wagnild, Objective and subjective measurement of sedentary behavior in human adults: A toolkit, 2020, 1042-0533, 10.1002/ajhb.23546
    29. Alec PL Tolley, Keenan A Ramsey, Anna GM Rojer, Esmee M Reijnierse, Andrea B Maier, Objectively measured physical activity is associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review, 2021, 08954356, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.009
    30. Joana Chong, Petra Tjurin, Maisa Niemelä, Timo Jämsä, Vahid Farrahi, Machine-learning models for activity class prediction: A comparative study of feature selection and classification algorithms, 2021, 89, 09666362, 45, 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.06.017
    31. Sonia W.M. Cheng, Jennifer A. Alison, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Sarah M. Dennis, Zoe J. McKeough, Validity and Accuracy of Step Count as an Indicator of a Sedentary Lifestyle in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2023, 00039993, 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.01.020
    32. Mary C. Hidde, Kate Lyden, Kim Henry, Heather J. Leach, Reallocating Time to Physical Activity and Sleep: Associations with Body Mass Index in Cancer Survivors, 2023, 1070-5503, 10.1007/s12529-023-10152-7
    33. Mary C. Hidde, Mary E. Crisafio, Emma Gomes, Kate Lyden, Heather J. Leach, An Evaluation of Participant Perspectives and Wear-Time Compliance for a Wrist-Worn Versus Thigh-Worn Accelerometer in Cancer Survivors, 2023, 20, 1543-3080, 129, 10.1123/jpah.2022-0346
    34. Alexander H.K. Montoye, Bradford S. Westgate, Kimberly A. Clevenger, Karin A. Pfeiffer, Joseph D. Vondrasek, Morgan R. Fonley, Joshua M. Bock, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Individual versus Group Calibration of Machine Learning Models for Physical Activity Assessment Using Body-Worn Accelerometers, 2021, Publish Ahead of Print, 0195-9131, 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002752
    35. Ayda Karaca, Necip Demirci, Vedat Yılmaz, Sinem Hazır Aytar, Sema Can, Evrim Ünver, Validation of the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT Accelerometer for Step Counts at Five Different Body Locations in Laboratory Settings, 2022, 26, 1091-367X, 63, 10.1080/1091367X.2021.1948414
    36. Aleksandra Makarewicz, Małgorzata Jamka, Maria Wasiewicz-Gajdzis, Joanna Bajerska, Anna Miśkiewicz-Chotnicka, Jarosław Kwiecień, Aleksandra Lisowska, Dominque Gagnon, Karl-Heinz Herzig, Edyta Mądry, Jarosław Walkowiak, Comparison of Subjective and Objective Methods to Measure the Physical Activity of Non-Depressed Middle-Aged Healthy Subjects with Normal Cognitive Function and Mild Cognitive Impairment—A Cross-Sectional Study, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 8042, 10.3390/ijerph18158042
    37. Shu Ning Ch’ng, Joanne A. McVeigh, David Manners, Terry Boyle, Carolyn J. Peddle-McIntyre, Rajesh Thomas, Jeanie Leong, Samantha Bowyer, Kirsten Mooney, Leon Straker, Daniel A. Galvão, Vinicius Cavalheri, Sedentary Behaviour, Physical Activity, and Their Associations with Health Outcomes at the Time of Diagnosis in People with Inoperable Lung Cancer, 2022, 11, 2077-0383, 5870, 10.3390/jcm11195870
    38. Fangyu Liu, Amal A Wanigatunga, Jennifer A Schrack, Assessment of Physical Activity in Adults Using Wrist Accelerometers, 2021, 43, 1478-6729, 65, 10.1093/epirev/mxab004
    39. Riccardo Femiano, Charlotte Werner, Matthias Wilhelm, Prisca Eser, Validation of open-source step-counting algorithms for wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometers in cardiovascular patients, 2022, 92, 09666362, 206, 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.11.035
    40. Matthew C. Ruder, Roger Zauel, Brian J. Diefenbach, Michael J. Bey, Quantifying shoulder activity after rotator cuff repair: Technique and preliminary results, 2022, 40, 0736-0266, 917, 10.1002/jor.25122
    41. MIKAEL ANNE GREENWOOD-HICKMAN, SUPUN NAKANDALA, MARTA M. JANKOWSKA, DORI E. ROSENBERG, FATIMA TUZ-ZAHRA, JOHN BELLETTIERE, JORDAN CARLSON, PAUL R. HIBBING, JINGJING ZOU, ANDREA Z. LACROIX, ARUN KUMAR, LOKI NATARAJAN, The CNN Hip Accelerometer Posture (CHAP) Method for Classifying Sitting Patterns from Hip Accelerometers: A Validation Study, 2021, 53, 1530-0315, 2445, 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002705
    42. Thomas D. Griffiths, Diane Crone, Mike Stembridge, Rachel N. Lord, Co-Production at Work: The Process of Breaking Up Sitting Time to Improve Cardiovascular Health. A Pilot Study, 2021, 19, 1660-4601, 361, 10.3390/ijerph19010361
    43. Willie Leung, Layne Case, Ming-Chih Sung, Jaehun Jung, A meta-analysis of Fitbit devices: same company, different models, different validity evidence, 2022, 46, 0309-1902, 102, 10.1080/03091902.2021.2006350
    44. Charlotte L Edwardson, Benjamin D Maylor, Nathan P Dawkins, Tatiana Plekhanova, Alex V Rowlands, Comparability of Postural and Physical Activity Metrics from Different Accelerometer Brands Worn on the Thigh: Data Harmonization Possibilities, 2022, 26, 1091-367X, 39, 10.1080/1091367X.2021.1944154
    45. Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman, Jing Zhou, Andrea Cook, Kayne D. Mettert, Bev Green, Jennifer McClure, David Arterburn, Stefani Florez-Acevedo, Dori E. Rosenberg, Exploring Differences in Older Adult Accelerometer-Measured Sedentary Behavior and Resting Blood Pressure Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2022, 8, 2333-7214, 233372142210960, 10.1177/23337214221096007
    46. Alexander H.K. Montoye, Olivia Coolman, Amberly Keyes, Megan Ready, Jaedyn Shelton, Ethan Willett, Brian C. Rider, Evaluation of Two Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Brands in Laboratory and Free-Living Settings, 2022, 5, 2575-6605, 233, 10.1123/jmpb.2022-0012
    47. Karin A Pfeiffer, Kimberly A Clevenger, Andrew Kaplan, Cailyn A Van Camp, Scott J Strath, Alexander H K Montoye, Accessibility and use of novel methods for predicting physical activity and energy expenditure using accelerometry: a scoping review, 2022, 43, 0967-3334, 09TR01, 10.1088/1361-6579/ac89ca
    48. James D. Amor, Christopher J. James, Validation of a Commercial Android Smartwatch as an Activity Monitoring Platform, 2018, 22, 2168-2194, 968, 10.1109/JBHI.2017.2732678
    49. Nolan Gall, Ruopeng Sun, Matthew Smuck, A Comparison of Wrist- Versus Hip-Worn ActiGraph Sensors for Assessing Physical Activity in Adults: A Systematic Review, 2022, 5, 2575-6605, 252, 10.1123/jmpb.2021-0045
    50. Thomas Bilterys, Eveline Van Looveren, Olivier Mairesse, Jo Nijs, Mira Meeus, Kelly Ickmans, Barbara Cagnie, Dorien Goubert, Ward Willaert, Robby De Pauw, Lieven Danneels, Maarten Moens, Anneleen Malfliet, Predictors for physical activity and its change after active physical therapy in people with spinal pain and insomnia: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, 2022, 26, 14133555, 100456, 10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100456
    51. Xiaoping Zheng, Michiel F Reneman, Rita HR Schiphorst Preuper, Egbert Otten, Claudine JC Lamoth, Relationship between physical activity and central sensitization in chronic low back pain: Insights from machine learning, 2023, 232, 01692607, 107432, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107432
    52. Anne-Christine Auge, Gabriel Blouin-Demers, Dennis L. Murray, William David Halliday, Developing a classification system to assign activity states to two species of freshwater turtles, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0277491, 10.1371/journal.pone.0277491
    53. Mayara S. Bianchim, Melitta A. McNarry, Rachel Evans, Lena Thia, Alan R. Barker, Craig A. Williams, Sarah Denford, Kelly A Mackintosh, Calibration and Cross-validation of Accelerometry in Children and Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis, 2023, 27, 1091-367X, 51, 10.1080/1091367X.2022.2065919
    54. Vincenza Gianfredi, Pietro Ferrara, Flavia Pennisi, Giulia Casu, Andrea Amerio, Anna Odone, Daniele Nucci, Monica Dinu, Association between Daily Pattern of Physical Activity and Depression: A Systematic Review, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 6505, 10.3390/ijerph19116505
    55. Zeynep S. Akinci, Oriol Marquet, Xavier Delclòs-Alió, Carme Miralles-Guasch, Urban vitality and seniors’ outdoor rest time in Barcelona, 2022, 98, 09666923, 103241, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103241
    56. Duncan S Buchan, Benjamin D Maylor, Comparison of physical activity metrics from two research-grade accelerometers worn on the non-dominant wrist and thigh in children, 2023, 0264-0414, 1, 10.1080/02640414.2023.2197726
    57. John P. Rech, Priyanka Chaudhary, Michaela Schenkelberg, Danae Dinkel, A Convergent Mixed Methods Study to Explore Physical Activity Among Teachers and Children During the Preschool Day, 2023, 1082-3301, 10.1007/s10643-023-01486-8
    58. Naureen Akber Ali Meghani, Joanne Hudson, Gareth Stratton, Jane Mullins, Deepak Sahoo, A multi-method feasibility trial of a multi-component behaviour change intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity among ethnically diverse older adults, 2024, 14, 2044-6055, e084645, 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084645
    59. Avirup Roy, Hrishikesh Dutta, Amit Kumar Bhuyan, Subir Biswas, On-Device Semi-Supervised Activity Detection: A New Privacy-Aware Personalized Health Monitoring Approach, 2024, 24, 1424-8220, 4444, 10.3390/s24144444
    60. Guilherme Moraes Balbim, Ryan S Falck, Nárlon Cássio Boa Sorte Silva, Arthur F Kramer, Michelle Voss, Teresa Liu-Ambrose, Lewis A Lipsitz, The Association of the 24-Hour Activity Cycle Profiles With Cognition in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2024, 79, 1079-5006, 10.1093/gerona/glae099
    61. Udeni Jayasinghe, Faustina Hwang, William S. Harwin, Inertial measurement data from loose clothing worn on the lower body during everyday activities, 2023, 10, 2052-4463, 10.1038/s41597-023-02567-4
    62. Benjamin D. Maylor, Charlotte L. Edwardson, Alexandra M. Clarke-Cornwell, Melanie J. Davies, Nathan P. Dawkins, David W. Dunstan, Kamlesh Khunti, Tom Yates, Alex V. Rowlands, Physical Activity Assessed by Wrist and Thigh Worn Accelerometry and Associations with Cardiometabolic Health, 2023, 23, 1424-8220, 7353, 10.3390/s23177353
    63. Zhi Cao, Jiahao Min, Yabing Hou, Keyi Si, Mingwei Wang, Chenjie Xu, Association of accelerometer-derived physical activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among individuals with cardiovascular diseases: a prospective cohort study, 2024, 2047-4873, 10.1093/eurjpc/zwae248
    64. Li‐Tang Tsai, Eleanor Boyle, Sussi F Buhl, Gry Kock, Jan C Brønd, Marjolein Visser, Nuno Mendonça, Eric J Shiroma, Paolo Caserotti, Associations between appetite, physical activity and sedentary behaviour from hip‐ and wrist‐worn accelerometers in community‐dwelling older adults, 2023, 23, 1444-1586, 411, 10.1111/ggi.14588
    65. Priyanka Chaudhary, John P Rech, Gaurav Kumar, Danae Dinkel, Perceived barriers and facilitators of childcare providers’ physical activity: A mixed-methods study, 2024, 83, 0017-8969, 137, 10.1177/00178969231222543
    66. Inge de Wolf, Anne Elevelt, Femke van Nassau, Vera Toepoel, Ellen de Hollander, Maaike E. Kompier, Annemieke Luiten, Barry Schouten, G. C. Wanda Wendel-Vos, Hidde P. van der Ploeg, Comparing national device-based physical activity surveillance systems: a systematic review, 2024, 21, 1479-5868, 10.1186/s12966-024-01612-8
    67. Kirkke Reisberg, Eva-Maria Riso, Liina Animägi, Jaak Jürimäe, Longitudinal Relationships of Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Muscular Fitness with Body Fatness in Preschoolers, 2024, 12, 2075-4663, 237, 10.3390/sports12090237
    68. Kyle R. Leister, Sara E. Burke, Joon Young Kim, Victor H. Duenas, Tiago V. Barreira, Comparison of daily step count between the Fitbit Inspire 3 and the activPAL 3 in adults with transtibial amputation, 2024, 5, 2673-6861, 10.3389/fresc.2024.1331005
    69. Iris Parés-Salomón, Anna M. Señé-Mir, Fernando Martín-Bozas, Bette Loef, Alan Coffey, Kieran P. Dowd, Guillem Jabardo-Camprubí, Karin I. Proper, Anna Puig-Ribera, Judit Bort-Roig, Effectiveness of workplace interventions with digital elements to reduce sedentary behaviours in office employees: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2024, 21, 1479-5868, 10.1186/s12966-024-01595-6
    70. Taylor McCoy, Anthony J. Sochan, Andrea M. Spaeth, The Relationship between Sleep and Physical Activity by Age, Race, and Gender, 2024, 25, 1530-6550, 10.31083/j.rcm2510378
    71. Franziska Beck, Isabel Marzi, Alina Eisenreich, Selina Seemüller, Clara Tristram, Anne K. Reimers, Determination of cut-off points for the Move4 accelerometer in children aged 8–13 years, 2023, 15, 2052-1847, 10.1186/s13102-023-00775-4
    72. S.A. Pomeshkina, E.A. Demchenko, Methods of sedentary lifestyle study: possibilities and limitations, 2024, 27, 2305-4948, 97, 10.17116/profmed20242705197
    73. Agus Salim, Christian J. Brakenridge, Dulari Hakamuwa Lekamlage, Erin Howden, Ruth Grigg, Hayley T. Dillon, Howard D. Bondell, Julie A. Simpson, Genevieve N. Healy, Neville Owen, David W. Dunstan, Elisabeth A. H. Winkler, Detection of sedentary time and bouts using consumer-grade wrist-worn devices: a hidden semi-Markov model, 2024, 24, 1471-2288, 10.1186/s12874-024-02311-5
    74. Andrea Weber, Daniela Schmid, Michael F. Leitzmann, 2023, Chapter 67-1, 978-1-4614-6625-3, 1, 10.1007/978-1-4614-6625-3_67-1
    75. S. M. J. Janssen, M. A. Spruit, R. S. Djamin, J. C. C. M in ‘t Veen, H. A. C. van Helvoort, A. J. van ‘t Hul, Reliability of 24-h measurement of physical activity, sleep, and sedentary time in adult patients with asthma using a triaxial accelerometer, 2024, 0277-0903, 1, 10.1080/02770903.2024.2420758
    76. Amie Wallman-Jones, Carina Nigg, Valentin Benzing, Mirko Schmidt, Leave the screen: The influence of everyday behaviors on self-reported interoception, 2023, 181, 03010511, 108600, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108600
    77. Elyse Letts, Josephine S Jakubowski, Sara King-Dowling, Kimberly Clevenger, Dylan Kobsar, Joyce Obeid, Accelerometer techniques for capturing human movement validated against direct observation: a scoping review, 2024, 45, 0967-3334, 07TR01, 10.1088/1361-6579/ad45aa
    78. Songtao Lu, Jun Sun, Zhiguang Guo, Mingyu Yi, Yuheng Zhang, Jiali Wang, Yue Wang, Instrumented measures of sedentary behavior and physical activity are associated with depression among children and adolescents: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of observational studies, 2024, 15, 1664-1078, 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1465974
    79. Anis Davoudi, Jacek K. Urbanek, Lacey Etzkorn, Romil Parikh, Elsayed Z. Soliman, Amal A. Wanigatunga, Kelley Pettee Gabriel, Josef Coresh, Jennifer A. Schrack, Lin Yee Chen, Validation of a Zio XT Patch Accelerometer for the Objective Assessment of Physical Activity in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, 2024, 24, 1424-8220, 761, 10.3390/s24030761
    80. Arto J. Pesola, Samad Esmaeilzadeh, Pirjo Hakala, Nina Kallio, Päivi Berg, Marko Havu, Tiina Rinne, Sensitivity and specificity of measuring children's free-living cycling with a thigh-worn Fibion® accelerometer, 2023, 5, 2624-9367, 10.3389/fspor.2023.1113687
    81. Johan Y. Y. Ng, Joni H. Zhang, Stanley S. Hui, Guanxian Jiang, Fung Yau, James Cheng, Amy S. Ha, Yaodong Gu, Development of a multi-wear-site, deep learning-based physical activity intensity classification algorithm using raw acceleration data, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0299295, 10.1371/journal.pone.0299295
    82. Julie Riopel-Meunier, Paul Poirier, Jean-Pierre Després, Marie-Eve Piché, Is the time right for preventive cardiology guidelines on sedentary behaviors and sitting time?, 2024, 0828282X, 10.1016/j.cjca.2024.12.024
    83. Kimberly A. Clevenger, Melitta A. McNarry, Kelly A. Mackintosh, Karin A. Pfeiffer, M. Benjamin Nelson, Joshua M. Bock, Mary T. Imboden, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Alexander H.K. Montoye, A Consensus Method for Estimating Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Levels in Adults Using Wrist-Worn Accelerometers, 2024, 7, 2575-6605, 10.1123/jmpb.2024-0013
    84. Brandon D. Willingham, Marcos Daou, Jake VanArsdale, Meghan Thomas, Patrick G. Saracino, Energy Availability in Female Collegiate Beach Volleyball Athletes, 2024, 1064-8011, 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004884
    85. Dawei Wang, Yuheng Zhang, Zhiguang Guo, Songtao Lu, Sedentary behavior and physical activity are associated with risk of depression among adult and older populations: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis, 2025, 16, 1664-1078, 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1542340
    86. Barbara Engels, Manon A. T. Bloemen, Richard Felius, Karlijn Damen, Eline A. M. Bolster, Harriët Wittink, Raoul H. H. Engelbert, Jan Willem Gorter, Monitoring of child-specific activities in ambulatory children with and without developmental disabilities, 2025, 25, 1471-2431, 10.1186/s12887-025-05489-9
    87. Arto J. Pesola, Marko Havu, Automated Algorithm for Accurate Waking Sitting and Physical Activity Estimates Without Diaries Using Thigh-Worn Fibion Accelerometers in 10- to 12-Year-Old Children, 2025, 8, 2575-6605, 10.1123/jmpb.2024-0022
    88. Reagan E. Garcia, Anne B. Newman, Eileen Johnson, Yujia Susanna Qiao, Peggy M. Cawthon, Barbara J. Nicklas, Bret H. Goodpaster, Nancy W. Glynn, Using Wearable Devices to Examine the Associations of Sedentary Behavior with Perceived and Performance Fatigability Among Older Adults: The Study of Muscle, Mobility and Aging (SOMMA), 2025, 25, 1424-8220, 2722, 10.3390/s25092722
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(9171) PDF downloads(845) Cited by(21)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog