Drinking water pond: Difference between revisions
2nd system |
3rd System |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== 1. |
== 1.Geotextile fabric, LDPE rubber and Wall protection == |
||
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Microplastics === |
=== Microplastics === |
||
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water |
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water (of all the other systems presented on this page). |
||
=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability === |
=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability === |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM. |
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM. |
||
== 2. |
== 2.Geotextile fabric, EPDM rubber and Wall protection == |
||
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install. |
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install. |
||
== 3. |
== 3.Geotextile fabric, Clay slabs and Geotextile fabric == |
||
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
||
This system has Energy-intensive material supply. |
|||
=== Durability === |
=== Durability === |
||
The geotextile fabric of the textile would eventually need to be replaced. |
|||
=== Microplastics === |
=== Microplastics === |
||
This systems holds similar density of microplastics to the 2nd system. |
|||
=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability === |
=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability === |
||
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer. |
|||
=== Water conservation === |
=== Water conservation === |
||
The pond surface area is increasing by because excavator access is required for cleaning; consequently, there will be significantly higher evaporation. |
|||
=== Impact on water quality === |
=== Impact on water quality === |
||
With this system one most be careful to Leaching of nutrients from clay. |
|||
=== Miscellaneous === |
=== Miscellaneous === |
||
Underground extraction and cleaning are not possible; an excavator must be able to drive in. This also increases the ponds surface. |
|||
=== Cost === |
=== Cost === |
||
Significantly more expensive than using a pure film. Clay tiles, delivery and Installation of the materials are the main factors of this increase. |
|||
== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer == |
== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer == |
||
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup === |
||
This system has Energy-intensive material supply. |
|||
=== Durability === |
=== Durability === |
||
Revision as of 13:12, 26 June 2026
1.Geotextile fabric, LDPE rubber and Wall protection
Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.
Durability
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.
Microplastics
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water (of all the other systems presented on this page).
Susceptibility to problems and repairability
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.
Water conservation
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².
Impact on water quality
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.
Miscellaneous
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.
Cost
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.
2.Geotextile fabric, EPDM rubber and Wall protection
Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup
This system uses more materials than the LDPE system.
Durability
This System has a longer service life than the LDPE system (approx. 40 years) but has poorer recyclability.
Microplastics
This system has a better impact on microplastics in water than the LPDE system has.
Water conservation
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².
Impact on water quality
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.
Miscellaneous
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.
Cost
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install.
3.Geotextile fabric, Clay slabs and Geotextile fabric
Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.
Durability
The geotextile fabric of the textile would eventually need to be replaced.
Microplastics
This systems holds similar density of microplastics to the 2nd system.
Susceptibility to problems and repairability
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.
Water conservation
The pond surface area is increasing by because excavator access is required for cleaning; consequently, there will be significantly higher evaporation.
Impact on water quality
With this system one most be careful to Leaching of nutrients from clay.
Miscellaneous
Underground extraction and cleaning are not possible; an excavator must be able to drive in. This also increases the ponds surface.
Cost
Significantly more expensive than using a pure film. Clay tiles, delivery and Installation of the materials are the main factors of this increase.
4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer
Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.
