Environment Group

Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

Environment Group

Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | March 10, 2017
Site: www.techtimes.com

Apple - Here's What You May Not Know Marking a major boost to Apple's commitment to expand clean energy use in its operations and taking the clean energy campaign to suppliers, the iPhone maker's operations in Japan will be turning 100 percent renewable energy thanks to its Japanese supplier Ibiden. Announcing this, Apple said Ibiden will be using 100 percent renewable energy to manufacture Apple components and has the honor of being the first partner to do so in Japan. Apple called the move a big step forward in helping manufacturing partners toward the use of clean power. "We're proud to partner with suppliers like Ibiden who recognize that renewable energy investments are good for the environment and good for business," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president for Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives. Apple added that it will continue to help partners across the world to reduce energy use and establish high-quality renewable energy projects like the floating solar photovoltaic facility outside Nagoya. Ibiden will have 20 new renewable energy facilities that are significant for managing the urban space crunch innovatively. Most innovative is a floating island of solar photovoltaic system constructed in a converted lumber yard to address the space problem. The mountainous terrain of the island constrains the availability of vast urban space in Japan for manufacturing operations. The Apple supplier is targeting 12 MW of solar power production which will cover the company's manufacturing operations in Japan and may offer the surplus power to the national grid. Reciprocating the praise lavished by Apple, Ibiden's Managing Director for Environment Group Kyoichi Yamanaka noted that the investments in new and innovative clean energy are an example of the company's commitment to doing business responsibly and economically. "Our products help Apple devices run smarter, and now we're powering our operations with smarter energy too. We're pleased to partner with Apple and lead the way in helping Japan to meet its clean energy goals," added Yamanaka. Apple claims that its current operations in 23 countries and 93 percent operations worldwide are covered by renewable energy sources. In 2015, Apple persuaded suppliers in China to make the transition to renewable energy pledge through building up solar farms and remove more than 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from the air. Apple said it would assist the Chinese government in reducing air pollution in the next five years. Apple's ambitious target involves generating over 2.5 billion kilowatt hours per year in clean energy for use in manufacturing facilities. That will be like taking away 400,000 cars off the road. Meanwhile, the U.S. solar market grew massively and doubled its annual record by installing 14,626 megawatts of solar PV in 2016. It marked a 95 percent increase over the previous record of 7,493 megawatts in 2015, according to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association, which gave the highlights of the U.S. Solar Market Insight report. The report will be released on March 9. This is the first time the U.S. solar became the no. 1 source of new power generating capacity additions: solar represented 39 percent of all new capacity additions annually among all fuel sources in 2016. "What these numbers tell you is that the solar industry is a force to be reckoned with," said Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. Hopper added that solar energy's strong growth in many market segments has so far employed more than 260,000 Americans. © 2017 Tech Times, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.


This report studies DeNOx-SCR Catalyst in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with capacity, production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Beijing Denox Environment & Technology Co., Ltd. CoaLogix Cormetech Datang Nanjing Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. Dongfang KWH Envirotherm GmbH Fujian Longking Co., Ltd. Guodian Technology & Environment Group Corporation Limited Haldor Topsoe Hitachi Jiangsu Wonder Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. Johnson Matthey Catalyst Nippon Shokubai Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of DeNOx-SCR Catalyst in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Honeycomb Plate Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of DeNOx-SCR Catalyst in each application, can be divided into 2 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2012-2017) 3.1 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production by Region (2012-2017) 3.2 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production Market Share by Region (2012-2017) 3.3 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2012-2017) 3.4 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.5 North America DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.6 Europe DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.7 China DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.8 Japan DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.9 Southeast Asia DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.10 India DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 5 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type 5.1 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 5.2 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 5.3 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Price by Type (2012-2017) 5.4 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production Growth by Type (2012-2017) 6 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Market Analysis by Application 6.1 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Consumption and Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 6.2 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2012-2017) 6.3 Market Drivers and Opportunities 6.3.1 Potential Applications 6.3.2 Emerging Markets/Countries 7 Global DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Beijing Denox Environment & Technology Co., Ltd. 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.1.2.1 Product A 7.1.2.2 Product B 7.1.3 Beijing Denox Environment & Technology Co., Ltd. DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 CoaLogix 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.2.2.1 Product A 7.2.2.2 Product B 7.2.3 CoaLogix DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Cormetech 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.3.2.1 Product A 7.3.2.2 Product B 7.3.3 Cormetech DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Datang Nanjing Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.4.2.1 Product A 7.4.2.2 Product B 7.4.3 Datang Nanjing Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Dongfang KWH 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.5.2.1 Product A 7.5.2.2 Product B 7.5.3 Dongfang KWH DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Envirotherm GmbH 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.6.2.1 Product A 7.6.2.2 Product B 7.6.3 Envirotherm GmbH DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 Fujian Longking Co., Ltd. 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.7.2.1 Product A 7.7.2.2 Product B 7.7.3 Fujian Longking Co., Ltd. DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Guodian Technology & Environment Group Corporation Limited 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.8.2.1 Product A 7.8.2.2 Product B 7.8.3 Guodian Technology & Environment Group Corporation Limited DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 Haldor Topsoe 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.9.2.1 Product A 7.9.2.2 Product B 7.9.3 Haldor Topsoe DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 Hitachi 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Product Type, Application and Specification 7.10.2.1 Product A 7.10.2.2 Product B 7.10.3 Hitachi DeNOx-SCR Catalyst Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 Jiangsu Wonder Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. 7.12 Johnson Matthey Catalyst 7.13 Nippon Shokubai For more information, please visit http://www.wiseguyreports.com


Collins A.L.,Environment Group | Walling D.E.,University of Exeter | Webb L.,UK Environment Agency | King P.,UK Environment Agency
Geoderma | Year: 2010

Sediment fingerprinting techniques provide a means of assembling valuable reliable information on the principal sources of sediment problems at catchment scale. However, there is a need to refine existing approaches to take account of a variety of sources of uncertainty and to incorporate prior information. To address this need, a modified mass balance model incorporating a Monte Carlo approach for representing the uncertainty surrounding source and sediment sampling, as well as weightings to take account of the within-source variability and discriminatory power of individual tracer properties and prior information on bank erosion, was used to apportion recent sediment sources in sub-catchments of the Somerset Levels, south west UK. Sensitivity tests confirmed that the precision of source apportionment was improved by incorporating the weightings and prior information into the mixing model. Estimates of the overall mean contributions from individual source types, bounded by 95% confidence limits, were assessed to be 42 ± 2% (pasture topsoils), 22 ± 2% (cultivated topsoils), 22 ± 1% (channel banks/subsurface sources), 12 ± 2% (damaged road verges) and 2 ± 1% (STWs). Respective estimates of net sediment delivery to watercourses, provided by integrating the source ascription results with estimated sediment yield ranges and sub-catchment or land use areas, ranged between 33-829 kg ha- 1 yr- 1, 30-1995 kg ha- 1 yr- 1, 2-315 kg ha- 1 yr- 1, 0-217 kg ha- 1 yr- 1, and 0-28 kg ha- 1 yr- 1. Sediment fingerprinting should always include uncertainty analysis but on the understanding that the latter will be conditional on the assumptions used. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


Vincent A.C.J.,University of British Columbia | Sadovy de Mitcheson Y.J.,University of Hong Kong | Fowler S.L.,IUCN Shark Specialist Group | Lieberman S.,Environment Group
Fish and Fisheries | Year: 2014

All possible tools need to be marshalled for marine fish conservation. Yet controversy has swirled around what role, if any, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) should play for marine fishes. This paper analyses the relevance and applicability of CITES as a complementary tool for fisheries management. CITES currently regulates the international trade of very few marine fish species, by listing them in its Appendices. After the first meeting of the Parties (member countries) in 1976, no new marine fish taxa were added to the CITES Appendices until 2002, when Parties agreed to act to ensure sustainable and legal international trade in seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) and two species of sharks. Progress has continued haltingly, adding only one more shark, humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and sawfishes by 2012. Parties voice concerns that may include inadequate data, applicability of CITES listing criteria, roles of national fisheries agencies, enforcement challenges, CITES' lack of experience with marine fishes, and/or identification and by-catch problems. A common query is the relationship between CITES and other international agreements. Yet all these arguments can be countered, revealing CITES to be a relevant and appropriate instrument for promoting sound marine fisheries management. In reality, Parties that cannot implement CITES effectively for marine fishes will also need help to manage their fisheries sustainably. CITES action complements and supports other international fisheries management measures. As CITES engages with more marine fish listings, there will be greater scope to analyse its effectiveness in supporting different taxa in different contexts. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


Collins A.L.,Environment Group | Walling D.E.,University of Exeter | Stroud R.W.,University of Exeter | Robson M.,UK Environment Agency | Peet L.M.,Environment Group
Hydrological Processes | Year: 2010

Diffuse sediment pollution impairs water quality, exerts a key control on the transfer and fate of nutrients and contaminants and causes deleterious impacts on freshwater ecology. A variety of catchment sediment sources can contribute to such problems. Sediment control strategies and effective targeting of mitigation options therefore require robust quantitative information on the key sources of the sediment problem at catchment scale. Recent observations by Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers (CSFO's) in England have highlighted road verges damaged and eroded by passing vehicles, particularly large farm machinery, and livestock herd movement as visually important potential sources of local sediment problems. A study was therefore undertaken to assess the relative importance of damaged road verges as a suspended sediment source in three sub-catchments of the Hampshire Avon drainage basin, southern UK. Road verge sediment contributions were apportioned in conjunction with those from agricultural topsoils and channel banks/subsurface sources. Time-integrating isokinetic samplers were deployed to sample suspended sediment fluxes at the outlets of two control sub-catchments drained by the Rivers Chitterne and Till selected to characterize areas with a low road network density and limited visual evidence of verge damage, as well as the River Sem sub-catchment used to represent areas where road verge damage is more prevalent. The findings of a sediment source fingerprinting investigation based on a combination of intermittent sampling campaigns spanning the period 22/5/02-27/4/08 suggested that the respective overall mean relative sediment contributions from damaged road verges were 5 ± 3%, 4 ± 2% and 20 ± 2%. Relative inputs from damaged road verges for any specific sampling period in the River Sem sub-catchment were as high as 33 ± 2%. Reconstruction of historical sources in the same sub-catchment, based on the geochemical record stored in a floodplain depth profile, suggested that the significance of damaged road verges as a sediment source has increased over the past 15-20 years. The findings provide important information on damaged road verges as a primary source of suspended sediment and imply that catchment sediment control strategies and mitigation plans should consider such verges in addition to those agricultural and channel sources traditionally taken into account when attempting to reduce sediment pressures on aquatic resources. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


News Article | November 21, 2016
Site: www.newsmaker.com.au

This report studies Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering  Alstom  Amec  Babcock & Wilcox Company  Babcock Noell Gmbh  Burns & Mcdonnell  China Environment  Clyde Bergemann Power Group  Doosan Power Systems  Ducon Technologies  Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh  Flsmidth & Co.  Fuel Tech  Goudian Technology & Environment Group  Haldor Topsoe  Hamon & Cie  Hitachi  Marsulex Environmental Technologies  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries  Siemens  Thermax Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like  North America  Europe  China  Japan  Southeast Asia  India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into  Type I  Type II  Type III Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems in each application, can be divided into  Application 1  Application 2  Application 3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Market Research Report 2016  1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Market Overview  1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems  1.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Segment by Type  1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems by Type in 2015  1.2.2 Type I  1.2.3 Type II  1.2.4 Type III  1.3 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Segment by Application  1.3.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015  1.3.2 Application 1  1.3.3 Application 2  1.3.4 Application 3  1.4 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Market by Region  1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems (2011-2021) 7 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis  7.1 Alstom  7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.1.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.1.2.1 Type I  7.1.2.2 Type II  7.1.3 Alstom Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.2 Amec  7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.2.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.2.2.1 Type I  7.2.2.2 Type II  7.2.3 Amec Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company  7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.3.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.3.2.1 Type I  7.3.2.2 Type II  7.3.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.4 Babcock Noell Gmbh  7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.4.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.4.2.1 Type I  7.4.2.2 Type II  7.4.3 Babcock Noell Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.5 Burns & Mcdonnell  7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.5.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.5.2.1 Type I  7.5.2.2 Type II  7.5.3 Burns & Mcdonnell Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.6 China Environment  7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.6.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.6.2.1 Type I  7.6.2.2 Type II  7.6.3 China Environment Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.7 Clyde Bergemann Power Group  7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.7.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.7.2.1 Type I  7.7.2.2 Type II  7.7.3 Clyde Bergemann Power Group Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.8 Doosan Power Systems  7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.8.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.8.2.1 Type I  7.8.2.2 Type II  7.8.3 Doosan Power Systems Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.9 Ducon Technologies  7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.9.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.9.2.1 Type I  7.9.2.2 Type II  7.9.3 Ducon Technologies Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.10 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh  7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.10.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Product Type, Application and Specification  7.10.2.1 Type I  7.10.2.2 Type II  7.10.3 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Systems Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.11 Flsmidth & Co.  7.12 Fuel Tech  7.13 Goudian Technology & Environment Group  7.14 Haldor Topsoe  7.15 Hamon & Cie  7.16 Hitachi  7.17 Marsulex Environmental Technologies  7.18 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries  7.19 Siemens  7.20 Thermax


This report studies Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Haldor Topsoe Hamon & Cie Hitachi Marsulex Environmental Technologies Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Siemens Thermax Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Research Report 2016 1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 1.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Type I 1.2.3 Type II 1.2.4 Type III 1.3 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Segment by Application 1.3.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Application 1 1.3.3 Application 2 1.3.4 Application 3 1.4 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment (2011-2021) 2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2011-2016) 3.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production by Region (2011-2016) 3.2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.4 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.5 North America Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.6 Europe Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.7 China Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.8 Japan Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.9 Southeast Asia Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.10 India Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 4 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Consumption by Regions (2011-2016) 4.2 North America Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.3 Europe Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.4 China Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.5 Japan Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.6 Southeast Asia Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.7 India Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 5 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type 5.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 5.2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 5.3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Price by Type (2011-2016) 5.4 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production Growth by Type (2011-2016) 6 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Analysis by Application 6.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Consumption and Market Share by Application (2011-2016) 6.2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2011-2016) 6.3 Market Drivers and Opportunities 6.3.1 Potential Applications 6.3.2 Emerging Markets/Countries 7 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Alstom 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.1.2.1 Type I 7.1.2.2 Type II 7.1.3 Alstom Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Amec 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.2.2.1 Type I 7.2.2.2 Type II 7.2.3 Amec Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.3.2.1 Type I 7.3.2.2 Type II 7.3.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Babcock Noell Gmbh 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.4.2.1 Type I 7.4.2.2 Type II 7.4.3 Babcock Noell Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Burns & Mcdonnell 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.5.2.1 Type I 7.5.2.2 Type II 7.5.3 Burns & Mcdonnell Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 China Environment 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.6.2.1 Type I 7.6.2.2 Type II 7.6.3 China Environment Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 Clyde Bergemann Power Group 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.7.2.1 Type I 7.7.2.2 Type II 7.7.3 Clyde Bergemann Power Group Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Doosan Power Systems 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.8.2.1 Type I 7.8.2.2 Type II 7.8.3 Doosan Power Systems Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 Ducon Technologies 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.9.2.1 Type I 7.9.2.2 Type II 7.9.3 Ducon Technologies Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.10.2.1 Type I 7.10.2.2 Type II 7.10.3 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 Flsmidth & Co. 7.12 Fuel Tech 7.13 Goudian Technology & Environment Group 7.14 Haldor Topsoe 7.15 Hamon & Cie 7.16 Hitachi 7.17 Marsulex Environmental Technologies 7.18 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 7.19 Siemens 7.20 Thermax 8 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Manufacturing Cost Analysis 8.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Key Raw Materials Analysis 8.1.1 Key Raw Materials 8.1.2 Price Trend of Key Raw Materials 8.1.3 Key Suppliers of Raw Materials 8.1.4 Market Concentration Rate of Raw Materials 8.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure 8.2.1 Raw Materials 8.2.2 Labor Cost 8.2.3 Manufacturing Expenses 8.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 9 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers 9.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Industrial Chain Analysis 9.2 Upstream Raw Materials Sourcing 9.3 Raw Materials Sources of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Major Manufacturers in 2015 9.4 Downstream Buyers 12 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Forecast (2016-2021) 12.1 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Revenue Forecast (2016-2021) 12.2 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production, Consumption Forecast by Regions (2016-2021) 12.3 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Production Forecast by Type (2016-2021) 12.4 Global Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Consumption Forecast by Application (2016-2021) 12.5 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Price Forecast (2016-2021) Global QYResearch (http://globalqyresearch.com/ ) is the one spot destination for all your research needs. Global QYResearch holds the repository of quality research reports from numerous publishers across the globe. Our inventory of research reports caters to various industry verticals including Healthcare, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Technology and Media, Chemicals, Materials, Energy, Heavy Industry, etc. With the complete information about the publishers and the industries they cater to for developing market research reports, we help our clients in making purchase decision by understanding their requirements and suggesting best possible collection matching their needs.


This report studies sales (consumption) of United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market, focuses on the top players, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player, covering Split by product types, with sales, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Report 2016 1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 1.2 Classification of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 1.2.1 Type I 1.2.2 Type II 1.2.3 Type III 1.3 Application of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 1.3.1 Application 1 1.3.2 Application 2 1.3.3 Application 3 1.4 United States Market Size Sales (Value) and Revenue (Volume) of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment (2011-2021) 1.4.1 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 1.4.2 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 2 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales and Market Share of Key Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue and Share by Manufactures (2015 and 2016) 2.3 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Average Price by Manufactures (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.4.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Concentration Rate 2.4.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.4.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales (Volume) and Revenue (Value) by Type (2011-2016) 3.1 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 3.2 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 3.3 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Price by Type (2011-2016) 3.4 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales Growth Rate by Type (2011-2016) 4 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales (Volume) by Application (2011-2016) 4.1 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales and Market Share by Application (2011-2016) 4.2 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales Growth Rate by Application (2011-2016) 4.3 Market Drivers and Opportunities 5 United States Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 5.1 Alstom 5.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 5.1.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.1.2.1 Type I 5.1.2.2 Type II 5.1.3 Alstom Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.2 Amec 5.2.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.2.2.1 Type I 5.2.2.2 Type II 5.2.3 Amec Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company 5.3.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.3.2.1 Type I 5.3.2.2 Type II 5.3.3 Babcock & Wilcox Company Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.4 Babcock Noell Gmbh 5.4.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.4.2.1 Type I 5.4.2.2 Type II 5.4.3 Babcock Noell Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.5 Burns & Mcdonnell 5.5.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.5.2.1 Type I 5.5.2.2 Type II 5.5.3 Burns & Mcdonnell Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.6 China Environment 5.6.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.6.2.1 Type I 5.6.2.2 Type II 5.6.3 China Environment Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.7 Clyde Bergemann Power Group 5.7.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.7.2.1 Type I 5.7.2.2 Type II 5.7.3 Clyde Bergemann Power Group Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.8 Doosan Power Systems 5.8.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.8.2.1 Type I 5.8.2.2 Type II 5.8.3 Doosan Power Systems Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.9 Ducon Technologies 5.9.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.9.2.1 Type I 5.9.2.2 Type II 5.9.3 Ducon Technologies Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.10 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh 5.10.2 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Product Type, Application and Specification 5.10.2.1 Type I 5.10.2.2 Type II 5.10.3 Fisia Babcock Environment Gmbh Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 5.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 5.11 Flsmidth & Co. 5.12 Fuel Tech 5.13 Goudian Technology & Environment Group 5.14 Haldor Topsoe 5.15 Hamon & Cie 5.16 Hitachi 5.17 Marsulex Environmental Technologies 5.18 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 5.19 Siemens 5.20 Thermax 6 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Manufacturing Cost Analysis 6.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Key Raw Materials Analysis 6.1.1 Key Raw Materials 6.1.2 Price Trend of Key Raw Materials 6.1.3 Key Suppliers of Raw Materials 6.1.4 Market Concentration Rate of Raw Materials 6.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure 6.2.1 Raw Materials 6.2.2 Labor Cost 6.2.3 Manufacturing Expenses 6.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment 7 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers 7.1 Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Industrial Chain Analysis 7.2 Upstream Raw Materials Sourcing 7.3 Raw Materials Sources of Industrial Flue Gas Treatment Major Manufacturers in 2015 7.4 Downstream Buyers Global QYResearch (http://globalqyresearch.com/ ) is the one spot destination for all your research needs. Global QYResearch holds the repository of quality research reports from numerous publishers across the globe. Our inventory of research reports caters to various industry verticals including Healthcare, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Technology and Media, Chemicals, Materials, Energy, Heavy Industry, etc. With the complete information about the publishers and the industries they cater to for developing market research reports, we help our clients in making purchase decision by understanding their requirements and suggesting best possible collection matching their needs.


News Article | December 2, 2015
Site: www.fastcompany.com

Everyone knows that too much carbon dioxide is bad. It warms our planet, raises sea levels, and generally wreaks havoc on our environment (why leaders all over the world have gathered in Paris this week to talk about carbon emissions). Now, scientists have discovered a different way that CO2 harms us: if we’re exposed to too much of it indoors—like in an office—it hurts our ability to think, which may ultimately affect both our well-being and our job performance. Of course, people have known for a while that exceedingly high levels of CO2 are unsafe. For example, if you’re exposed to CO2 at 90,000 parts-per-million (ppm) for five minutes, you’ll die. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration sets an exposure limit way below that level, at 5,000 ppm on CO2 over an eight-hour work shift. Thankfully, most office buildings have an even lower concentration than that. At those lower levels, CO2 is considered harmless—it’s measured in buildings so people know how well-ventilated a space is, but no one’s ever considered CO2 a direct pollutant. But a recent study by scientists at Harvard and Syracuse suggests that those lower CO2 levels we consider harmless—concentrations found in many office buildings—are actually high enough to impair human health. For their study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers recruited 24 knowledge workers who normally spend their time in an office (like architects, designers, and engineers) and had them work eight-hour days in a simulated office. For several of those workdays, the researchers manipulated the level of CO2 in the office, so that it fell at either a low, moderate, or high level (~550 ppm, 945 ppm, or 1,400 ppm) for the day. The lowest level is pretty close to what you’d breathe outdoors, and represents a very well-ventilated building, whereas 945 ppm is the typical CO2 level found in most offices. Even 1,400 ppm isn’t unrealistic—study author Joseph Allen says that these are all concentrations you would get in standard office buildings. "It was our goal to make sure these simulations were tied to real world environments," says Allen, an assistant professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "We didn’t want to test the exotic or extreme, we wanted to test conditions that most of us find ourselves in." Indoor CO2 concentrations are determined by the number of people in a space (our breath is the source of CO2), the ventilation rate of the building, and the concentration of CO2 outdoors. (So poor ventilation and lots of people breathing in a space would cause high levels of CO2 indoors.) We tested conditions that most of us find ourselves in. During the CO2 trials, participants went about their normal workday, and both they and the researchers were blind to the air conditions in the simulated office. In the afternoon, Allen and his team gave participants a 1.5 hour cognitive assessment to test how that day’s CO2 level affected their high-order decision-making skills. The results showed a clear trend: less CO2 improves cognitive function. Compared to the lowest CO2 level (550 ppm), people scored 15% worse on the test for the moderate CO2 day (945 ppm) and 50% worse on the high CO2 day (1,400 ppm). The researchers also broke down participants’ cognitive function into different categories, and found that higher CO2 levels most hurt people’s ability to use information, respond to crises, and strategize—types of thinking closely related to productivity, says Allen. These results are pretty surprising. "It had been widely believed that carbon dioxide, at the levels found in buildings, had no adverse effects of people," says William Fisk, a senior scientist and leader of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Indoor Environment Group, who wasn’t involved in the study. Allen’s findings suggest otherwise, as do similar results from a 2012 study co-authored by Fisk. No one knows why relatively low CO2 hurts cognitive function, though Allen and a handful of other researchers are looking into it. The results suggest that businesses could benefit from increasing ventilation in the office to keep CO2 low—it may improve their employees’ health as well as their performance at work. "An executive isn't paying your health bills, but they are paying for your productivity," says Vivian Loftness, an architecture professor at Carnegie Mellon University who focuses on environmental design and sustainability, "You don't want your workforce to not be as productive as they could be." And while CO2’s effect on our cognitive health in the office may not seem connected to global warming, well, it is. Atmospheric CO2 levels are ~400 ppm—even lower than the concentrations in Allen’s study—but both Fisk and Allen say that rising CO2 outdoors makes it more of a challenge to keep CO2 concentration low indoors. Plus, Allen says, "this raises the prospect that there may yet be another concern with rising outdoor CO2 levels—direct effects on cognitive function." Yet another reason to hope that the Paris climate over the next couple weeks are a success.


The verdict on whether electronic cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes is still very much out. However, a recent study found e-cigarette emissions contain a variety of concerning chemicals, including some considered to be probable carcinogens. In a study published in July in Environmental Science & Technology, researchers found significant levels of 31 harmful chemical compounds in e-cigarette vapors, including two that had yet to be detected: propylene oxide and glycidol, both of which health researchers have described as reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. Researchers also found chemical emission differences based on the voltage of the e-cig vaporizer and how many puffs users take. Those differences are a particularly interesting takeaway because they touch on ways that manufacturers, or even users, may be able to minimize potentially harmful exposures. However, study co-author Hugo Destaillats, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and deputy leader of its Indoor Environment Group, stressed that while the study’s findings are concerning, they are not a definitive statement as to whether e-cigarettes are less, just as or more harmful to human health than regular cigarettes. “I don’t want to be seen as scaremongering,” Destaillats told me. “It may be that (e-cigarettes) are better than traditional cigarettes, especially for people who want to quit (cigarettes) but can’t. …But there are decades of research on smoking and little on vaping, so I wouldn’t be surprised if people find health effects we didn’t consider.” To conduct the study, researchers simulated vaping using three different e-liquids (the substances heated to produce vapor) and two different vaporizers, and then used a method known as gas and liquid chromatography to determine the contents of the e-cigarette emissions. They found several volatile ingredients in the e-liquids, including two solvents (propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin), nicotine, propylene oxide, ethanol and acetol. When the two solvents, which the study noted are found in most e-liquids, were heated and began to decompose, it led to emissions of acrolein, a known irritant, and formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen. Researchers also said that propylene oxide, a likely impurity of propylene glycol, is probably present in most e-liquids now on the market, which is concerning because propylene oxide is also considered a probable carcinogen as well as a known respiratory and eye irritant. The study also found big differences in the emissions produced by the first and last puffs. To imitate how people use e-cigarettes in real life, researchers used an apparatus that took puffs lasting five seconds every 30 seconds. Emissions were significantly higher once the vaporizers reached a steady temperature (what researchers called “steady-state”) at around 20 puffs, as compared to the first five to 10 minutes of puffing when the temperature was still rising. In fact, researchers found that in some cases, emission levels increased by a factor of 10 or more between initial puffs and steady-state puffs. For example, levels of the eye and respiratory irritant acrolein went from 0.46 micrograms to 8.7 micrograms per puff between initial temperature and steady-state temperature. “When we look at the chemical composition in the first couple puffs versus the final puffs, there were dramatic changes,” Destaillats said. “Even the same device with the same e-liquid can give different emissions depending on how you use it.” Researchers also found big emission differences between vaporizers with a single coil and double coil. (Destaillats explained that when the same voltage is split between two coils, as opposed to just one, fewer emissions are produced.) On the issue of voltage, the study found that as the battery power output increased, the average vapor temperature reached at a steady state was higher. As a result, as voltage went up, the amount of e-liquid consumed per puff was higher too. Here again Destaillats emphasized that the findings don’t mean that lower temperatures make for safer vaping, saying: “By emitting less, the exposure may be less harmful…but we cannot say it’s safer or it’s healthier.” Destaillats and his colleagues also examined how the age of a vaporizer affected emissions. In using a single vaping device for nine consecutive rounds of 50 puffs — similar to how an e-cigarette user would vape in real life — researchers found that aldehyde emissions increased by more than 60 percent, with greater contributions of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein. The effect was likely due to residue buildup inside the vaporizer, or what users call “coil gunk.” Destaillats told me that this study is far from comprehensive, as the market is home to hundreds of different e-liquids. But he said it does tease out the particular problem of solvents, which are a common e-liquid ingredient that when heated up do, indeed, emit harmful chemicals. Destaillats and colleagues will soon publish another study on secondhand e-cigarette exposures, attempting to measure the composition of e-cig vapors that people exhale. He noted that because e-cigarette use among young people is growing so quickly and health officials worry such trends threaten to reverse hard-fought declines in traditional smoking, understanding the true harms posed by e-cigarettes is crucial. “Yes, there is some urgency to this kind of research,” Destaillats said. “But we’re often behind because the technology changes so fast.” To request a full copy of the e-cigarette emissions study, visit Environmental Science & Technology. Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

Loading Environment Group collaborators
Loading Environment Group collaborators