Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks

Poor mixing in water storage tanks can cause stagnant zones that could pose negative public health effects. The present study uses Life Cycle Assessment to decide among the only three mixing options available, namely sprinkler, multiple inlets, and a mechanical mixer for the first time. These option...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Mohammad Alizadeh Fard, Brian D. Barkdoll
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	IWA Publishing 2021
Materias:	cost evaluation life-cycle assessment mixing storage tanks Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500 River, lake, and water-supply engineering (General) TC401-506
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/878cdddaa3f24ee083ba25e5ea6281b8
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:878cdddaa3f24ee083ba25e5ea6281b8
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:878cdddaa3f24ee083ba25e5ea6281b82021-11-06T07:09:07ZSustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks1606-97491607-079810.2166/ws.2020.346https://doaj.org/article/878cdddaa3f24ee083ba25e5ea6281b82021-03-01T00:00:00Zhttp://ws.iwaponline.com/content/21/2/553https://doaj.org/toc/1606-9749https://doaj.org/toc/1607-0798Poor mixing in water storage tanks can cause stagnant zones that could pose negative public health effects. The present study uses Life Cycle Assessment to decide among the only three mixing options available, namely sprinkler, multiple inlets, and a mechanical mixer for the first time. These options were compared using different life-cycle assessment (LCA) tools using an 80-year lifetime as the functional unit while assuming that all three options result in acceptable water quality. Using SimaPro modeling software as well as the IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.0 and Cumulative Energy Demand methods, these three mixing approaches were compared with and without waste recycling. Results showed that application of a sprinkler is the least expensive option. Damage-cost analyses for categories of human health, ecosystem quality, and resources showed that a sprinkler caused the least damage and cost, while a mixer resulted in the most damage and cost. HIGHLIGHTS LCA proved effective in analyzing tank mixing technologies.; Sprinklers caused the least environmental damage and cost.; Mechanical mixers resulted in the most damage and cost.; Multiple inlet mixing had high damage but medium cost.;Mohammad Alizadeh FardBrian D. BarkdollIWA Publishingarticlecost evaluationlife-cycle assessmentmixingstorage tanksWater supply for domestic and industrial purposesTD201-500River, lake, and water-supply engineering (General)TC401-506ENWater Supply, Vol 21, Iss 2, Pp 553-566 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	cost evaluation life-cycle assessment mixing storage tanks Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500 River, lake, and water-supply engineering (General) TC401-506
spellingShingle	cost evaluation life-cycle assessment mixing storage tanks Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500 River, lake, and water-supply engineering (General) TC401-506 Mohammad Alizadeh Fard Brian D. Barkdoll Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
description	Poor mixing in water storage tanks can cause stagnant zones that could pose negative public health effects. The present study uses Life Cycle Assessment to decide among the only three mixing options available, namely sprinkler, multiple inlets, and a mechanical mixer for the first time. These options were compared using different life-cycle assessment (LCA) tools using an 80-year lifetime as the functional unit while assuming that all three options result in acceptable water quality. Using SimaPro modeling software as well as the IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.0 and Cumulative Energy Demand methods, these three mixing approaches were compared with and without waste recycling. Results showed that application of a sprinkler is the least expensive option. Damage-cost analyses for categories of human health, ecosystem quality, and resources showed that a sprinkler caused the least damage and cost, while a mixer resulted in the most damage and cost. HIGHLIGHTS LCA proved effective in analyzing tank mixing technologies.; Sprinklers caused the least environmental damage and cost.; Mechanical mixers resulted in the most damage and cost.; Multiple inlet mixing had high damage but medium cost.;
format	article
author	Mohammad Alizadeh Fard Brian D. Barkdoll
author_facet	Mohammad Alizadeh Fard Brian D. Barkdoll
author_sort	Mohammad Alizadeh Fard
title	Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
title_short	Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
title_full	Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
title_fullStr	Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
title_full_unstemmed	Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
title_sort	sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks
publisher	IWA Publishing
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/878cdddaa3f24ee083ba25e5ea6281b8
work_keys_str_mv	AT mohammadalizadehfard sustainablelifecycleassessmentofmixingapproachesinwaterstoragetanks AT briandbarkdoll sustainablelifecycleassessmentofmixingapproachesinwaterstoragetanks
_version_	1718443807973834752

Sustainable life-cycle assessment of mixing approaches in water storage tanks

Ejemplares similares