Change search
Refine search result
1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Fantke, Peter
    et al.
    DTU Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
    Aurisano, Nicolo
    DTU Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
    Bare, Jane
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
    Backhaus, Thomas
    University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Bulle, Cécile
    CIRAIG ESG UQAM, Canada.
    Chapman, Peter M
    Chapema Environmental Strategies Ltd, Canada.
    De Zwart, Dick
    DdZ Ecotox, The Netherlands.
    Dwyer, Robert
    International Copper Association, USA.
    Ernstoff, Alexi
    Quantis, Switzerland.
    Golsteijn, Laura
    PRé Sustainability, The Netherlands.
    Holmquist, Hanna
    Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
    Jolliet, Olivier
    University of Michigan, USA.
    McKone, Thomas E
    University of California, USA.
    Owsianiak, Mikołaj
    DTU Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
    Peijnenburg, Willie
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands.
    Posthuma, Leo
    Radboud University, The Netherlands.
    Roos, Sandra
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Swerea, Swerea IVF.
    Saouter, Erwan
    European Commission, Italy.
    Schowanek, Diederik
    Procter & Gamble, Belgium.
    van Straalen, Nico M
    Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    Vijver, Martina G
    Leiden University, The Netherlands.
    Hauschild, Michael
    DTU Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
    Toward Harmonizing Ecotoxicity Characterization in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.2018In: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ISSN 0730-7268, E-ISSN 1552-8618, Vol. 37, no 12, p. 2955-2971Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems at the global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted at the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modelling chemical exposure of organisms and resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. Outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice in exposure and effect modelling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes reflect the current science and ensure stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of (a) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, (b) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and (c) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. Here, we report the current framework as well as discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach for ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, metals pose a specific focus, which includes consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

  • 2.
    Pilgård, Annica
    et al.
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Sveriges tekniska forskningsinstitut, Trätek.
    De Vetter, Liesbeth
    Van Acker, Joris
    Westin, Mats
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Sveriges tekniska forskningsinstitut, Trätek.
    Toxic hazard of leachates from furfurylated wood: Comparison between two different aquatic organisms2010In: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ISSN 0730-7268, E-ISSN 1552-8618, Vol. 29, no 5, p. 1067-1071Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Environmental concern regarding the use of toxic preservatives such as chromated copper arsenate (CCA) has been put forward. In the European Union, United States, and Japan, CCA has been phased out for residential and water-contact applications. Ecotoxicological studies of wood treated with conventional preservatives were carried out in the late 1990s, and it was concluded that the main impact is to water and aquatic organisms. Today, alternatives to conventional preservation methods, marketed as “environmentally friendly” or “nontoxic,” are emerging. Examples of such alternatives are modified wood, e.g., thermally modified, furfurylated, and acetylated wood. To date, not enough hazard characterization has been performed. In the present study, the Microtox® assay with the marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri and the Daphtox® procedure with the crustacean Daphnia magna were used as screening methods in an effect assessment. Both organisms were exposed to water leachates from furfurylated wood using two different leaching procedures. The results indicate that Microtox is more sensitive to the toxic components from furfurylated wood than Daphtox. Furthermore, the toxicity of treated Pinus radiata was higher than that of treated Pinus sylvestris. The toxicity did not diminish over the test period, as is the case for preservative-treated wood. The present study found that treatment conditions can influence the toxicity considerably, so toxicity studies should be included in the development of new treatment process. The present study also shows that using an intermediate vacuum-drying step, leading to a more efficient curing/polymerization, results in slightly less hydrophobic oligomers in the product, such that the leachates become less toxic to bacteria.

  • 3.
    Pilgård, Annica
    et al.
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Sveriges tekniska forskningsinstitut, Trätek.
    Treu, Andreas
    van Zeeland, Albert
    Gosselink, Richard
    Westin, Mats
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Sveriges tekniska forskningsinstitut, Trätek.
    Toxic hazard and chemical analysis of leachates from furfurylated wood2010In: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ISSN 0730-7268, E-ISSN 1552-8618, Vol. 29, no 9, p. 1918-1924Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The furfurylation process is an extensively investigated wood modification process. Furfuryl alcohol molecules penetrate into the wood cell wall and polymerize in situ. This results in a permanent swelling of the wood cell walls. It is unclear whether or not chemical bonds exist between the furfuryl alcohol polymer and the wood. In the present study, five different wood species were used, both hardwoods and softwoods. They were treated with three different furfurylation procedures and leached according to three different leaching methods. The present study shows that, in general, the leachates from furfurylated wood have low toxicity. It also shows that the choice of leaching method is decisive for the outcome of the toxicity results. Earlier studies have shown that leachates from wood treated with furfuryl alcohol prepolymers have higher toxicity to Vibrio fischeri than leachates from wood treated with furfuryl alcohol monomers. This is probably attributable to differences in leaching of chemical compounds. The present study shows that this difference in the toxicity most likely cannot be attributed to maleic acid, furan, furfural, furfuryl alcohol, or 2-furoic acid. However, the difference might be caused by the two substances 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and 2,5-furandimethanol. The present study found no difference in the amount of leached furfuryl alcohol between leachates from furfurylated softwood and furfurylated hardwood species. Earlier studies have indicated differences in grafting of furfuryl alcohol to lignin. However, nothing was found in the present study that could support this. The leachates of furfurylated wood still need to be investigated further to identify the chemical differences between wood furfurylated with furfuryl alcohol monomers and furfuryl alcohol prepolymers.

1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.35.8