Optical spectrum analyzers and typical applications in astronomy and remote sensing.

Scientists are increasingly relying on astronomical and remote sensing technologies to gain deeper insights into the Earth and the universe. In these fields, the optical spectrum analyzer (OSA) or spectrometer plays a pivotal role. This Review offers a comprehensive overview of the fundamental principles, key parameters, and applications of various branches of traditional OSAs, including prisms, gratings, interferometers, tunable filters, and reconstructive spectrometers. We specifically focus on their latest major applications in astronomy and remote sensing. Additionally, we present a mathematical model of the generalized reconstructive spectrometer and provide a summary of its principles pertaining to spectral mapping, reconstruction, and imaging. Despite its limited aperture and étendue, the reconstructive spectrometer holds great potential for future use in astronomy and remote sensing due to its compact size and exceptional ultrahigh spectral resolution.

Water immersion methods do not alter muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three water immersion interventions performed after active recovery compared to active recovery only on the resolution of inflammation and markers of muscle damage post-exercise. METHODS: Nine physically active men (n = 9; age 20‒35 years) performed an intensive loading protocol, including maximal jumps and sprinting on four occasions. After each trial, one of three recovery interventions (10 min duration) was used in a random order: cold-water immersion (CWI, 10 °C), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI, 24 °C), contrast water therapy (CWT, alternately 10 °C and 38 °C). All of these methods were performed after an active recovery (10 min bicycle ergometer), and were compared to active recovery only (ACT). 5 min, 1, 24, 48, and 96 h after exercise bouts, immune response and recovery were assessed through leukocyte subsets, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, myoglobin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations. RESULTS: Significant changes in all blood markers occurred at post-loading (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences observed in the recovery between methods. However, retrospective analysis revealed significant trial-order effects for myoglobin and neutrophils (p < 0.01). Only lymphocytes displayed satisfactory reliability in the exercise response, with intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The recovery methods did not affect the resolution of inflammatory and immune responses after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise. It is notable that the biomarker responses were variable within individuals. Thus, the lack of differences between recovery methods may have been influenced by the reliability of exercise-induced biomarker responses.