Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2018 (231) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (97)
- Zeitschriftenartikel (53)
- Posterpräsentation (45)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (14)
- Buchkapitel (10)
- Zeitschriftenheft (Herausgeberschaft für das komplette Heft) (4)
- Forschungsbericht (4)
- Sonstiges (2)
- Monografie (1)
- Dissertation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (152)
- Deutsch (73)
- Spanisch (3)
- Chinesisch (2)
- Französisch (1)
Schlagworte
- Biofilms (10)
- Ink (10)
- Leaching (10)
- Corrosion (9)
- E. coli (8)
- NAP-XPS (8)
- XRF (8)
- Archaeometry (7)
- Manuscript (7)
- Nano (7)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 4 Material und Umwelt (231) (entfernen)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (97)
An approach to achieve “zero leakage” is discussed with respect to the experience in Germany, where strict regulations for landfill lining and capping systems have been developed and issued because of large environmental problems related to landfills that accumulated in the 1970’s and 1980’s. These regulations for landfills and geosynthetics which are used in landfill liner and capping systems are shortly described. The main certification requirements for the products as well as conclusions for their use are presented. Using a thick, high quality HDPE geomembrane (GMB), which is installed free of residual waves and wrinkles in intimate contact with a compacted clay liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) of very low permeability, by a qualified, experienced, well equipped and properly third‐party controlled installer and which are protected by heavy protection layers designed with respect to long‐term performance of the GMB, may result in a liner or capping system of practically no leakage. This is demonstrated by analyzing results of measurements obtained from permanently installed leak detection systems in combination with HDPE GMBs.
The characteristics of different molecules chosen as representatives for specific functionalities in conditioning layers play an important role on attachment behavior and later biofilm formation of bacteria. The chemical composition is a major component influencing the attachment but there is a conglomerate of influences.
UBA und BAM schlagen die Durchführung der Prüfkammermessungen bei 23 °C und 50% relativer Luftfeuchte, einer Beladung von 1,8 m²/m³ und einem Luftwechsel von 0,5 pro Stunde vor. Diese Parameter orientieren sich an der EN 16516, die als zukünftige „Referenznorm“ zu betrachten ist. Die Schmalflächenversiegelung ist auch zukünftig wie in der EN 717-1 beschrieben vorzunehmen. Nach 28 Tagen wird der Mittelwert einer Doppelbestimmung als Endkonzentration („entsprechend der Ausgleichskonzentration“) berechnet. Alternativ dazu kann die Prüfung vorzeitig abgebrochen werden, wenn an 5 Messtagen der Prüfung eine Formaldehydkonzentration von 0,1 ppm nicht überschritten wird.
Prüfungen nach der EN 717-1 sollen weiterhin gleichberechtigt möglich sein. Ergebnisse von Messungen, die nach der EN 717-1 ermittelt wurden, sind mit dem Faktor 2,0 zu multiplizieren.
Abgeleitete Verfahren wie z.B. das Gasanalyseverfahren sollen weiterhin möglich sein. Das Perforatorverfahren entfällt hier, da eine allgemeine für alle Holzwerkstoffe gültige Korrelationen nicht existiert.
Die entsprechenden Änderungen sind in der vom BMUB veröffentlichten „Bekanntmachung analytischer Verfahren für Probenahmen und Untersuchungen für die im Anhang der Chemikalien-Verbotsverordnung genannten Stoffe und Stoffgruppen“ entsprechend zu ändern.
Comparison of Formaldehyde Concentrations in Emission Test Chambers Using EN 717-1 and EN 16516
(2018)
For more than 25 years EN 717-1 (Wood-based panels - Determination of formaldehyde re-lease - Part 1: Formaldehyde emission by the chamber method) is the standard for formalde-hyde emission testing of wooden boards. In 2017 EN 16516 (Construction products - Assess-ment of release of dangerous substances - Determination of emissions into indoor air) was published as a new harmonised standard for the emission testing of construction products. Because test chamber conditions are different, both standards give different concentrations for formaldehyde. To determine a conversion factor four test series were set up with different wooden boards. For a loading of 1 m²/m³ the conversion factor is 1.6. This means that the formaldehyde concentration measured under the conditions of EN 16516 is a factor of 1.6 higher compared to EN 717-1.
Comparison of Formaldehyde Concentrations in Emission Test Chambers Using EN 717-1 and EN 16516
(2018)
For many years EN 717-1 (Wood-based panels - Determination of formaldehyde release - Part 1: Formaldehyde emission by the chamber method) is the standard for formaldehyde emission testing of wooden boards. In 2017 EN 16516 (Construction products - Assessment of release of dangerous substances - Determination of emissions into indoor air) was published as a new harmonised standard for the emission testing of construction products. Because test chamber conditions are different, both standards give different concentrations for formaldehyde. For the determination of a conversion factor four test series were set up with different wooden boards.
Summary: A screening test for potential emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) was run on different thermoplastic filaments used for 3D printing. The method of direct thermal desorption was used to simulate the high temperatures during the 3D printing process and to identify the main compounds emitted from the filaments. A large number of unexpected compounds were detected that might affect the user’s health and have an impact on indoor air chemistry.
Introduction: The use of desktop 3D printers is increasing. Compared to other devices with known emissions, e.g. laser printers, there is still a lack of information on possible emissions of VOC and ultrafine particles during operation and the effect on indoor air quality. Most of the commercially available desktop 3D printers operate with a molten polymer deposition. For this process a solid thermoplastic filament is heated in an extrusion nozzle. Most filaments for desktop 3D printers use either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polylactic acid (PLA) as filament. Alternatives are polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or polycarbonate (PC).
Method: Eight different thermoplastic filaments for 3D printers were analysed by direct thermal desorption followed by GC-MS identification of the emitted substances. Direct thermal desorption was done by desorbing 5 mg of the feedstock for 1 minute at a temperature of 210°C. This is an average temperature for 3D printing with thermoplastic filaments.
Results and conclusions: The comparison of the 4 different filament groups showed the highest overall emissions from ABS, followed by PLA, PC and PVA. Filament ABS 2 emitted mainly SVOCs and triphenyl phosphate, the latter has the highest emission for a single compound from all evaluated filaments.
Thermoplastic filaments are a new source of VOC emissions due to the high temperatures associated with 3D printing, which can reach up to 270°C. Some of the detected compounds like lactic acid, lactide and bisphenol A have never been described before in the indoor environment. Additionally some of the main substances could not be identified and some others might have the potential to affect the indoor air chemistry.
The appearance of some newly detected compounds raises concerns about potential health effects for the users of 3D printers at home.
Advantages of recycling gypsum plaster boards
During the last decades the material composition of buildings has become increasingly diverse. However, largely sorted material flows are needed for generating high quality secondary building materials. The use of secondary building materials can meet the requirements of sustainability in several ways: the extended time availability of primary raw materials and, thereby, the preservation of natural resources as well as the conservation of landfill sites.
Recycling of gypsum (calcium sulfate) can be a good example for the environmental benefits of closed-loop recycling. The content of sulfates in other secondary building materials, in particular in recycled concrete aggregates, should be minimized for quality reasons. In contrast, separated gypsum can also be used in gypsum production if the high quality requirements for the recycled gypsum are met. Since almost all processing steps in the recycling process are associated with environmental impacts, an environmental evaluation of the use of recycled gypsum as a substitute in gypsum production has to be carefully conducted.
This paper focusses on the techniques for generating recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboards, the related quality requirements and a comprehensive environmental evaluation of the complete process.
During the last decades the material composition of buildings has become increasingly diverse. However, largely sorted material flows are needed for generating high quality secondary building materials. The use of secondary building materials can meet the requirements of sustainability in several ways: the extended time availability of primary raw materials and, thereby, the preservation of natural resources as well as the conservation of landfill sites.
Recycling of gypsum (calcium sulfate) can be a good example for the environmental benefits of closed-loop recycling. The content of sulfates in other secondary building materials, in particular in recycled concrete aggregates, should be minimized for quality reasons. In contrast, separated gypsum can also be used in gypsum production if the high quality requirements for the recycled gypsum are met. Since almost all processing steps in the recycling process are associated with environmental impacts, an environmental evaluation of the use of recycled gypsum as a substitute in gypsum production has to be carefully conducted.
This paper focusses on the techniques for generating recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboards, the related quality requirements and a comprehensive environmental evaluation of the complete process.