Time filter

Source Type

Nantes, France

Desrosiers M.,Center dExpertise en Analyse Environnementale du Quebec | Martel L.,Center dExpertise en Analyse Environnementale du Quebec | Boudreau L.,DSEE | Cormier M.,Environment Canada | And 8 more authors.
ASTM Special Technical Publication | Year: 2012

The St. Lawrence River is subject to various anthropological pressures that can entail negative consequences for the ecosystem. As a result of the third and fourth St. Lawrence Action Plans, the current vision of sustainable management of this river and its main functions emphasizes the need for sound risk-based assessment approaches to support management decisions. More specifically, the sustainable navigation strategy, drawn up under St. Lawrence Action Plan III, explicitly identifies the need to develop sediment quality assessment tools, including those derived from ecotoxicological studies. The first management option addressed in this perspective was the open-water disposal of dredged sediments. In this context, an ecotoxicological risk assessment (ERA) approach using chemical characterization in Tier 1 and benthic organisms' toxicity tests in Tier 2 was elaborated based on physicochemical, toxicity testing, and benthic community structure data acquired from sediment samples collected in 59 sites along the St. Lawrence River. Hence this ERA approach will be used to determine whether the risk posed by the exposure of benthic organisms to dredged sediments at deposit sites and downstream is acceptable and compatible with open-water disposal. Copyright © 2012 by ASTM International. Source

Andric I.,DSEE | Jamali-Zghal N.,DSEE | Santarelli M.,Polytechnic University of Turin | Lacarriere B.,DSEE | Le Corre O.,DSEE
Journal of Cleaner Production | Year: 2014

To reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses, developed countries tend to increase the use of environmentally friendly renewable energy sources. Retrofitting of existing coal fired condensing power plants to co-firing with biomass is a generally accepted method for decreasing the dependency on fossil fuels and carbon-dioxide emission reductions. To determine if the co-firing is an environmentally friendly solution, two methods are used to cover all significant aspects of electricity production process that may influence the environment: carbon footprint and emergy evaluation. These environmentally accounting approaches were chosen to determine the maximum supply distance of biomass that allows the co-firing of coal and biomass to be more environmentally efficient than the pure coal combustion. Furthermore, geological origin of the coal combusted is taken into account, considering that the environmental inputs for feedstock creation varied throughout the history. The results of the study showed that the addition of approximately 20% biomass to the mass of the combustion mixture causes the decrease in carbon-dioxide emissions for nearly 11-25% and total emergy flow for 8-15%. However, further results indicate that the co-firing process is environmentally acceptable if the biomass supply stocks are within the area determined by maximum supply distances. Nevertheless, the supply area radius resulting from the emergy evaluation is 49-62% shorter depending on the coal type combusted. Furthermore, the emergy loading ratio of co-firing was lower than for the pure coal firing (10.65 compared to 12.39, respectively) indicating that the co-firing process causes less pressure on the ecosystem. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations