Development of deployable structures for large space platform systems, part 1

Eight deployable platform design objectives were established: autodeploy/retract; fully integrated utilities; configuration variability; versatile payload and subsystem interfaces; structural and packing efficiency; 1986 technology readiness; minimum EVA/RMS; and Shuttle operational compatibility

Toxicological profile for bis(chloromethyl) ether

prepared by Life Systems, Inc. under subcontract to Clement Associates."December 1989.""Prepared for Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service in collaboration with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.""Contract no. 205-88-0608."Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references (p. 49-58)

NIOSH skin notation (SK) profile : diethylenetriamine (DETA)

"Although there were no toxicokinetic studies that estimated the extent of dermal absorption of DETA identified in humans or animals, acute dermal toxicity studies [Smyth and Carpenter 1944; Smyth et al. 1949; Union Carbide Corporation 1977] sufficiently demonstrate that DETA is absorbed through the skin and is acutely toxic. A limited number of human studies were identified that evaluated the potential of DETA to cause direct skin effects. However, sufficient evidence is provided by animal data [Smyth et al. 1949; Dow Chemical Company 1951; Hine et al. 1958; American Cyanamid Company 1969; Union Carbide Corporation 1977] to demonstrate that DETA is corrosive to the skin at high concentrations, whereas more-dilute solutions are likely to cause skin irritation. Information from diagnostic patch tests in humans [Booth et al. 1962; Kligman 1966; Ormerod 1989] and from predictive tests in animals (GPMTs and murine LLNAs) [Thorgeirssen 1978; Union Carbide Chemicals 1990; Basketter et al. 1994; Leung and Aulette 1997] is sufficient to show that exposure to DETA causes skin sensitization and can induce cross-sensitization with structurally similar amines. On the basis of the available data, a composite skin notation of SK-SYS-DIR(COR)-SEN is assigned to DETA. Table 3 summarizes the skin hazard designations for DETA previously issued by NIOSH and other organizations. The equivalent dermal designations for DETA, according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, are Acute Toxicity Category 4 (Hazard statement: Harmful in contact with the skin), Skin Corrosion Category 1B (Hazard statement: Causes severe skin burns and eye damage), and Skin Sensitization Category 1 (May cause an allergic skin reaction) [European Parliament 2008]." - NIOSHTIC-2NIOSHTIC no. 20061329Suggested citation: NIOSH [2020]. NIOSH skin notation profile: diethylenetriamine (DETA). By Hudson NL. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2021-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB20211022021-102.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB20211022020936

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Biochar Application in the U.S. Cereal Crop Cultivation

Increasing global warming and food insecurity give ample rationale for research on biochar in view of its properties: enhancement of soil fertility and crop productivity, soil water retention and carbon sequestration. As a new technology the introduction of biochar into farming faces challenges and uncertainties, which are highlighted in the report along with the policy implications. Biochar is a type of charcoal created through pyrolysis of biomass. It is a carbonaceous substance produced with the intent to apply to soil for agricultural and environmental management. Biochar use and production can be deemed a mere business activity that should be ruled out by the market; however, due to multi-functionality of biochar properties this technology has important policy implications. Biochar can exert positive externalities, i.e. provide social benefits in the form of carbon sequestration or reduced agricultural water runoff, etc. Biochar, however, has not yet been studied in its entirety, and as such its application in some cases faces risks and uncertainty. Biochar advocates need to give a convincing argument to farmers about the benefits of biochar application in agronomy. Apart from the considerations of pure financial costs and benefits occurred to an individual farmer, it is necessary to be mindful of the social costs and/or benefits, risks and uncertainties that a new technology may impose on people and the environment. The research aimed to review the available literature on biochar, conduct a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the biochar application in the US cereal crop cultivation and give a recommendation to farmers and policy-makers on biochar use. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods were sued to collect the data and carry out an analysis over the fall 2011 - spring 2012. Specifically this research intended to answer the following questions: Do private and social benefits of biochar outweigh its private and social costs? Under what conditions? Is policy needed to promote biochar? The study was informed by the interviews with farmers from the Amherst area; literature and document review, and personal communication with biochar researchers and stakeholders. A costbenefit analysis (CBA) of the biochar application in the US wheat crop cultivation was conducted to identify the biochar profitability. The CBA used the field data of the Washington State research and the data from biochar studies in the northerly and tropical climates, using the formula “Benefits - Costs \u3e 0” as a criterion. Expert information and the existing literature were used to identify and fill in the gaps in the CBA. Based on the factual data and assumptions the private and social costs were compared to the total benefits ensuing from the biochar application. Private costs are measured as total costs accrued to a farmer during the purchase and field application of one ton of biochar per ha. Private benefits are measured as financial revenues a farmer gains from the increased wheat yield as a result of biochar soil treatment. This analysis is based on the biochar crop yield effect during the 1st year. It does not consider the prolonged effect of biochar on the wheat yield in the following years. Hence, the private benefits include only the revenues gained in the 1st year with hypothetical revenues ensuing from the biochar yield effects over the following 10 years. Social costs represent the risks and uncertainties of introducing biochar as a new agricultural technology. This research, though, does not include a specific value for social costs because of the difficulty in quantifying and monetizing the potential increase of soil temperature and loss of crops, biodiversity, and social tension the society may have to pay if biochar shows adverse effects. However, the considerations for social costs are included into the CBA analysis and conclusions. The blanks are identified and filled in with the appropriate use of bounds to manage uncertainty. Social benefits are measured as benefits accruing from the CO2 sequestration. Benefits resulting from the higher nutritional value and better soil water retention, conservation of biodiversity and higher food security (better yield predictability in the face of weather change), benefits of waste management, and the reduction of methane emissions from landfills are not included in the analysis. The CBA findings suggest that under the current costs the biochar application in the US cereal crop cultivation does not work privately in the first year because of the high costs of biochar. The 5 inclusion of a multi-year biochar effect on soil fertility and crop productivity, however, can add a significant value to biochar profitability, had the field research proved a positive yield effect. The findings demonstrate that the CO2 sequestration payments can play a very important role in biochar profitability. The carbon markets are not set up yet, therefore one way to look at biochar promotion is to consider the feasibility of introducing a policy on carbon sequestration payments, or to think of ways of reducing the cost of biochar by increasing the production scale. Meanwhile, farmers may find it profitable to use biochar for cultivation of cash crops that give a high return on investment, or on a small-scale in specific settings (greenhouses, tree nurseries, florist shops, etc.) Governmental investments in R&D and larger scale biochar applications are required to account for a vast heterogeneity of biochar systems. In the mean time the government should introduce an “incremental” biochar policy regulating current biochar application, while promoting the information exchange among the researchers, policy-makers and practitioners

How Do Firms Respond to Unions?

This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the margins along which firms in Norway respond to increased union density, using legislative changes in the tax deductibility of union dues as a quasi-exogenous shock to firm-level unionization rates. Despite higher personnel costs driven by a union wage premium, the average manufacturing firm increases employment and scales up production, charges higher prices in the product market, enjoys higher nominal value added per worker, and experiences no decrease in profits. We show that this result is a direct implication of the labor- and product-market power that the average manufacturing firm possesses, in combination with a reallocation of inputs and industry revenue shares from smaller and less unionized firms to larger and more unionized firms. Larger firms are, therefore, increasing employment and output at the same time their ability to mark up prices is growing, thereby preventing negative profit effects. For the broader private sector in which firms do not hold much price- or wage-setting power, we observe the opposite result: the average firm reduces employment and profit falls. We synthesize these findings through a partial-equilibrium model of firm decision-making that incorporates union bargaining, product-market price-setting power, and labor market monopsony power

Methyl cellosolve [CAS No. 109-86-4]

"This Skin Notation Profile presents (1) a brief summary of technical data associated with skin contact with ME and (2) the rationale behind the hazard-specific skin notation (SK) assignment for ME. The SK assignment is based on the scientific rationale and logic outlined in the Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) 61: A Strategy for Assigning New NIOSH Skin Notations [NIOSH 2009]. The summarized information and health hazard assessment are limited to an evaluation of the potential health effects of dermal exposure to ME. A literature search was conducted through July 2010 to identify information on ME, including but not limited to data relating to its toxicokinetics, acute toxicity, repeated- dose systemic toxicity, carcinogenicity, biological system/function-specific effects (including reproductive and developmental effects and immunotoxicity), irritation, and sensitization. Information was considered from studies of humans, animals, or appropriate modeling systems that are relevant to assessing the effects of dermal exposure to ME. Methyl cellosolve is potentially capable of causing multiple adverse health effects following skin contact. A critical review of available data has resulted in the following SK assignment for methyl cellosolve: SK: SYS. Table 1 provides an overview of the critical effects and data used to develop the SK assignment for methyl cellosolve. The following section provides additional details about the potential health hazards of skin contact with methyl cellosolve and the rationale behind the SK assignment." - NIOSHTIC-2Foreword -- Abbreviations -- Glossary -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1. General Substance Information -- 1.2. Purpose -- 1.3. Overview of SK Assignment for Methyl Cellosolve -- 2. Systemic Toxicity from Skin Exposure (SK: SYS) -- 3. Direct Effects on Skin (SK: DIR) -- 4 Immune-mediated Responses (SK: SEN) -- 5. Summary -- References -- Appendix: Calculation of the SI ratio for Methyl Cellosolve -- Overview -- Calculation -- Appendix: References"This document was developed by the Education and Information Division, Paul Schulte, Ph.D., Director. G. Scott Dotson, Ph.D. was the project officer for this document. Other NIOSH personnel, in particular Fredrick H. Frasch, Ph.D., Charles L. Geraci, Ph.D., Thomas J. Lentz, Ph.D., Richard Niemeier, Ph.D., and Anna Shvedova, Ph.D., contributed to its development by providing technical reviews and comments. The basis for this document was a report contracted by NIOSH and prepared by Bernard Gadagbui, Ph.D., and Andrew Maier, Ph.D. (Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment [TERA])." - p. ix"April 2011."Includes bibliographical references (p. 7-9).Also available via the World Wide Web as Acrobat .pdf file (722 KB, 28 p.)

Toxicological profile for glutaraldehyde

A Toxicological Profile for Glutaraldehyde, Draft for Public Comment was released in December 2015. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile.Chemical manager(s)/author(s): Sharon Wilbur, Carolyn Harper, Eugene Demchuk, Susan Zells Ingber, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Atlanta, GA; David W. Wohlers, Mario Citra, Mary Kawa, SRC, Inc., North Syracuse, NY.tp208.pd