8 research outputs found

    Greenhouse gas emissions of waste management processes and options : a case study

    Get PDF
    Increasing concern about climate change is prompting organisations to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Waste management activities also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In the waste management sector, there has been an increasing diversion of waste sent to landfill, with much emphasis on recycling and reuse to prevent emissions. This study evaluates the carbon footprint of the different processes involved in waste management systems, considering the entire waste management stream. Waste management data from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, London (UK), was used to estimate the carbon footprint for its (Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames) current source segregation system. Second, modelled full and partial co-mingling scenarios were used to estimate carbon emissions from these proposed waste management approaches. The greenhouse gas emissions from the entire waste management system at Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames were 12,347 t CO2e for the source-segregated scenario, and 11,907 t CO2e for the partial co-mingled model. These emissions amount to 203.26 kg CO2e t(-1) and 196.02 kg CO2e t(-1) municipal solid waste for source-segregated and partial co-mingled, respectively. The change from a source segregation fleet to a partial co-mingling fleet reduced the emissions, at least partly owing to a change in the number and type of vehicles

    Engineered Nanoparticles Interact with Nutrients to Intensify Eutrophication in a Wetland Ecosystem Experiment

    Get PDF
    Despite the rapid rise in diversity and quantities of engineered nanomaterials produced, the impacts of these emerging contaminants on the structure and function of ecosystems have received little attention from ecologists. Moreover, little is known about how manufactured nanomaterials may interact with nutrient pollution in altering ecosystem productivity, despite the recognition that eutrophication is the primary water quality issue in freshwater ecosystems worldwide. In this study, we asked two main questions: (1) To what extent do manufactured nanoparticles affect the biomass and productivity of primary producers in wetland ecosystems? (2) How are these impacts mediated by nutrient pollution? To address these questions, we examined the impacts of a citrate‐coated gold nanoparticle (AuNPs) and of a commercial pesticide containing Cu(OH)2 nanoparticles (CuNPs) on aquatic primary producers under both ambient and enriched nutrient conditions. Wetland mesocosms were exposed repeatedly with low concentrations of nanoparticles and nutrients over the course of a 9‐month experiment in an effort to replicate realistic field exposure scenarios. In the absence of nutrient enrichment, there were no persistent effects of AuNPs or CuNPs on primary producers or ecosystem productivity. However, when combined with nutrient enrichment, both NPs intensified eutrophication. When either of these NPs were added in combination with nutrients, algal blooms persisted for \u3e 50 d longer than in the nutrient‐only treatment. In the AuNP treatment, this shift from clear waters to turbid waters led to large declines in both macrophyte growth and rates of ecosystem gross primary productivity (average reduction of 52% ± 6% and 92% ± 5%, respectively) during the summer. Our results suggest that nutrient status greatly influences the ecosystem‐scale impact of two emerging contaminants and that synthetic chemicals may be playing an under‐appreciated role in the global trends of increasing eutrophication. We provide evidence here that chronic exposure to Au and Cu(OH)2 nanoparticles at low concentrations can intensify eutrophication of wetlands and promote the occurrence of algal blooms

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore