Synthetic Mats Research Articles

Physicochemical, agronomical and microbiological evaluation of alternative growing media for the production of rapini (Brassica rapa L.) microgreens.

Peat-based mixes and synthetic mats are the main substrates used for microgreens production. However, both are expensive and non-renewable. Recycled fibrous materials may represent low-cost and renewable alternative substrates. Recycled textile-fiber (TF; polyester, cotton and polyurethane traces) and jute-kenaf-fiber (JKF; 85% jute, 15% kenaf-fibers) mats were characterized and compared with peat and Sure to Grow® (Sure to Grow, Beachwood, OH, USA; http://suretogrow.com) (STG; 100% polyethylene-terephthalate) for the production of rapini (Brassica rapa L.; Broccoletto group) microgreens. All substrates had suitable physicochemical properties for the production of microgreens. On average, microgreens fresh yield was 1502 g m-2 in peat, TF and JKF, and was 13.1% lower with STG. Peat-grown microgreen shoots had a higher concentration of K+ and SO42- and a two-fold higher NO3- concentration [1959 versus 940 mg kg-1 fresh weight (FW)] than those grown on STG, TF and JKF. At harvest, substrates did not influence microgreens aerobic bacterial populations (log 6.48 CFU g-1 FW). Peat- and JKF-grown microgreens had higher yeast-mould counts than TF- and STG microgreens (log 2.64 versus 1.80 CFU g-1 FW). Peat-grown microgreens had the highest population of Enterobacteriaceae (log 5.46 ± 0.82 CFU g-1 ) and Escherichia coli (log 1.46 ± 0.15 CFU g-1 ). Escherichia coli was not detected in microgreens grown on other media. TF and JKF may be valid alternatives to peat and STG because both ensured a competitive yield, low nitrate content and a similar or higher microbiological quality. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

Cleanability of synthetic mats for use in cattle barns

The suitability of radiochemical determination methods for examining cleanability of synthetic mats for use in cattle barns was investigated. Five synthetic mats with smooth or rough, undulating or profiled surfaces, were examined. Inorganic particles, in a model soil, were clearly removed more easily from all surfaces than oil in the model soil. The surface profile of the mats clearly influenced cleanability, particularly in the case of the particle soil. The radiochemical laboratory method functioned well with the experimental setup used.

Synthetic lying mats may improve lying comfort of gestating sows

A prototype lying mat as an alternative to straw bedding for improving sow lying comfort was evaluated using a dynamic group of 47 gestating sows housed in a pen with 5 communal lying areas. Mats were installed in 3 lying areas while the concrete floors of the remaining lying areas remained uncovered (period 1). After 5 weeks the position of the lying mats was rotated (period 2). 24 h image-recordings were made from 5 weeks prior to the installation of the mats (period 0) until 5 weeks after rotation of the mats. The effect of the mats on lying area occupancy and behaviour was analysed. The occupancy of lying areas with a mat increased as compared to both the same lying areas before the installation of the mats (period 0), and to the other lying areas without a mat during the same observation period (periods 1 and 2, P = 0.011). This preference was more pronounced amongst sows that had been habituated to the experimental set-up for more than 7 days ( P < 0.001) and in period 2 than period 1 ( P = 0.004). However, the effects of period, stocking density and ambient temperature were confounded and could not be determined unambiguously. Mats did not significantly affect activity (proportion of time standing, sitting, and lying), lying bout duration, duration of lying per lying posture (sternal, half recumbent, recumbent) or getting-up duration. Sows lying on mats as compared to concrete, however, changed lying posture more often ( P = 0.002) and were more likely to adopt a recumbent instead of sternal lying posture ( P = 0.003). Under conditions of this experiment covering concrete floors with synthetic mats appeared to improve sow lying comfort. It is questionable whether this finding can be generalised to other (climatic) conditions. Furthermore, before such mats should be considered as an alternative to straw bedding for improving lying comfort further research is warranted to improve the durability of the mats and to investigate the long-term health consequences.

Quantitation of impact attenuation of different playground surfaces under various environmental conditions using a tri-axial accelerometer.

To rank playground surfaces with respect to impact attenuation under various simulated environmental conditions. An accelerometer was dropped from a height of 60 inches onto five different playground surfaces (wood chips, sand, gravel, grass, and commercial rubber mats). Impact attenuation was measured (in G forces) with the above surfaces dry, wet, and frozen. The accelerometer was dropped ten times onto each surface. All surfaces were tested in the wet, dry, and frozen states (saturated with water, then placed at -10 degrees C for 12 hours). Analysis of variance revealed that wood chips significantly lowered impact forces compared with sand in the wet or dry condition and to grass or synthetic mats in the dry or frozen condition (p < 0.05). Wood chips absorbed the shock of impact significantly more than did gravel in the dry, frozen state. Wood chips appear to be the single best playground surface under a variety of environmental conditions when assessed by impact attenuation studies.

Geosynthetics in erosion control — the principles

The principles of erosion control are basic, but geosynthetic materials manufactured and marketed for erosion control applications have varied significantly in the last decade. The problem of soil retention, protection, revegetation, and turf reinforcement can be solved with many different materials, both organic and synthetic. Specific material properties must, however, be met to achieve proper performance. This paper provides a review of the primary geosynthetic materials used for erosion control and their basic applications, including blankets for ground cover, geotextiles for filter protection beneath armor, geotextiles for silt control, synthetic mats and blankets used for erosion control/revegetation and turf reinforcement. The paper also includes several generic, physical-property criteria for the materials to be used in the primary applications discussed.

Slope protection by membrane structures

Left uncontrolled the effects of weathering can lead to severe degradation of slopes. To assess these effects a field trial has been carried out involving both protected and unprotected slopes. In this trial two types of slope protection were investigated. The first was a simple synthetic mat installed directly over the exposed surface of the slope. The second was a more substantial geotextile reinforced fill facing, incorporating fillow bushes which generate root systems to aid long-term stability of the protective facing. Data are presented to show that appropriate protection systems do prevent significant deterioration in the slope. Also the combination of a geotextile and deep rooting vegetation produce robust structures which are able to withstand high loadings with acceptable deformations. The use of a geotextile reinforced protection system is illustrated through two examples. These show that protection of the face of fill slopes can be achieved either by encapsulating the fill in the geotextile reinforcing layers or by the use of a three-dimensional wire netting applied directly to the face.