Occupational cooling practices of emergency first responders in the United States: A survey

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Temperature on 29/07/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2018.1493907 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Despite extensive documentation directed specifically toward mitigating thermal strain of first responders, we wished to ascertain the degree to which first responders applied cooling strategies, and what opinions are held by the various agencies/departments within the United States. An internet-based survey of first responders was distributed to the International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Firefighters, National Bomb Squad Advisory Board and the USA Interagency Board and their subsequent departments and branches. Individual first responder departments were questioned regarding the use of pre-, concurrent, post-cooling, types of methods employed, and/or reasons why they had not incorporated various methods in first responder deployment. Completed surveys were collected from 119 unique de-identified departments, including those working in law enforcement (29%), as firefighters (29%), EOD (28%) and HAZMAT technicians (15%). One-hundred and eighteen departments (99%) reported heat strain/illness to be a risk to employee safety during occupational duties. The percentage of departments with at least one case of heat illness in the previous year were as follows: fire (39%) HAZMAT (23%), EOD (20%) and law enforcement (18%). Post-cooling was the scheduled cooling method implemented the most (63%). Fire departments were significantly more likely to use post-cooling, as well as combine two types of scheduled cooling compared to other departments. Importantly, 25% of all departments surveyed provided no cooling whatsoever. The greatest barriers to personnel cooling were as follows–availability, cost, logistics, and knowledge. Our findings could aid in a better understanding of current practices and perceptions of heat illness and injury prevention in United States first responders. Abbreviations: EOD: explosive ordnance disposal; HAZMAT: hazardous materials.This project is financially supported by the United States Government through the United States Department of Defense (DOD).Published versio

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment With Market‐Driven Design

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86975/1/j.1530-9290.2011.00367.x.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86975/2/JIEC_367_sm_SuppMat.pd

Exploring impacts of process technology development and regional factors on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn stover ethanol

This paper examines impacts of regional factors affecting biomass and process input supply chains and ongoing technology development on the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol production from corn stover in the U.S. Corn stover supply results in GHG emissions from -6 gCO2eq./MJ ethanol (Macon County, Missouri) to 13 gCO2eq./MJ ethanol (Hardin County, Iowa), reflecting location-specific soil carbon and N2O emissions responses to stover removal. Biorefinery emissions based on the 2011 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) process model are the single greatest emissions source (18 gCO2eq./MJ ethanol) and are approximately double those assessed for the 2002 NREL design model, due primarily to the inclusion of GHG-intensive inputs (caustic, ammonia, glucose). Energy demands of on-site enzyme production included in the 2011 design contribute to reducing the electricity co-product and associated emissions credit, which is also dependent on the GHG-intensity of regional electricity supply. Life cycle emissions vary between 1.5 and 22 gCO2eq./MJ ethanol (2011 design) depending on production location (98% to 77% reduction vs. gasoline). Using system expansion for co-product allocation, ethanol production in studied locations meet the Energy Independence and Security Act emissions requirements for cellulosic biofuels; however, regional factors and on-going technology developments significantly influence these results