Urban Heat Island Mitigation via roof gardens

2 rooms of a Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-based facility were fitted with sensors at the terrace and room level. One room's terrace had a roof garden, and the other was exposed. The dataset presents the details of the temperature and humidity recorded at 4 places (garden indoor, garden outdoor, exposed indoor and exposed outdoor).Two sets of industry-grade temperature and humidity sensors were installed for data collection. These sensors included cased sensors for outdoor measurements and exposed sensors for internal regions. One set of sensors was placed in the baseline monitoring zone, which was the area without a garden, while the second set was installed in the green/heat mitigation monitoring zone, which was the area with the garden. The precise locations of the four installed sensors were as follows:1. The external baseline sensor was positioned in the southwest corner of the terrace in the exposed portion.2. The internal baseline sensor was mounted on the restroom ceiling, below the external sensor in the southwest corner.3. The external sensor for measuring data from the green roof was installed among the planter bags, near the parapet wall.4. A corresponding internal sensor to measure the impact of the green terrace was mounted on the ceiling of the storeroom directly below the planter bags.In addition to the sensors, secondary weather data for the larger Otteri neighbourhood was sourced from weather online, AccuWeather and Visual Crossing to complement the study

Urban Heat Island Mitigation via roof gardens

2 rooms of a Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-based facility were fitted with sensors at the terrace and room level. One room's terrace had a roof garden, and the other was exposed. The dataset presents the details of the temperature and humidity recorded at 4 places (garden indoor, garden outdoor, exposed indoor and exposed outdoor).Two sets of industry-grade temperature and humidity sensors were installed for data collection. These sensors included cased sensors for outdoor measurements and exposed sensors for internal regions. One set of sensors was placed in the baseline monitoring zone, which was the area without a garden, while the second set was installed in the green/heat mitigation monitoring zone, which was the area with the garden. The precise locations of the four installed sensors were as follows:1. The external baseline sensor was positioned in the southwest corner of the terrace in the exposed portion.2. The internal baseline sensor was mounted on the restroom ceiling, below the external sensor in the southwest corner.3. The external sensor for measuring data from the green roof was installed among the planter bags, near the parapet wall.4. A corresponding internal sensor to measure the impact of the green terrace was mounted on the ceiling of the storeroom directly below the planter bags.In addition to the sensors, secondary weather data for the larger Otteri neighbourhood was sourced from weather online, AccuWeather and Visual Crossing to complement the study.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Urban Heat Island Mitigation via Rooftop Garden - Sensor based data comparison

2 rooms of a Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-based facility were fitted with sensors at the terrace and room level. One room's terrace had a roof garden, and the other was exposed. The dataset presents the details of the temperature and humidity recorded at 4 places (garden indoor, garden outdoor, exposed indoor and exposed outdoor).Two sets of industry-grade temperature and humidity sensors were installed for data collection. These sensors included cased sensors for outdoor measurements and exposed sensors for internal regions. One set of sensors was placed in the baseline monitoring zone, which was the area without a garden, while the second set was installed in the green/heat mitigation monitoring zone, which was the area with the garden. The precise locations of the four installed sensors were as follows:1. The external baseline sensor was positioned in the southwest corner of the terrace in the exposed portion.2. The internal baseline sensor was mounted on the restroom ceiling, below the external sensor in the southwest corner.3. The external sensor for measuring data from the green roof was installed among the planter bags, near the parapet wall.4. A corresponding internal sensor to measure the impact of the green terrace was mounted on the ceiling of the storeroom directly below the planter bags.In addition to the sensors, secondary weather data for the larger Otteri neighbourhood was sourced from weather online, AccuWeather and Visual Crossing to complement the study.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Co-disposal of electronic waste with municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfills

Three pilot scale lysimeters were adopted to evaluate the stability pattern and leaching potential of heavy metals from MSW landfills under the E-waste co-disposed condition. One lysimeter served as control and solely filled with MSW, whereas the other two lysimeters were provided with 10% and 25% of E-waste scraps (% by weight), respectively. The reactors were monitored over a period of 280 days at ambient settings with continuous leachate recirculation. Stabilization pattern of carbon appears to be more than 50% in all the three lysimeters with irrespective of their operating conditions. Iron and zinc concentrations were high in leachate during bioreactor landfill operation and correlating with the TCLP leachability test results. In contrast, Pb concentration was around <0.6 mg/L, but which showed maximum leaching potential under TCLP test conditions. But, no heavy metal accumulation was found with leachate recirculation practices in lysimeters. Mobility of the metal content from the E-waste was found to be amplified with the long term disposal or stabilization within landfills. The results showed that the TCLP test cannot be completely reliable tool for measuring long-term leachability of toxic substances under landfill condition; rather landfill lysimeter studies are necessary to get the real scenario