Failure rate evaluation with influencing factors

A new methodology for failure rate evaluation with influencing factors is proposed. A quantitative part allows integrating potential available data from feedback. Then, a qualitative analysis deals with influencing factors such as design, environment, and use to provide more coherent and argued results. The main idea is to use some criteria to fix the failure rate within a prior interval, according to the influencing factor states. To this end, the system is broken up into main component groups. When a component group is susceptible to an influencing factor, its baseline failure rate is multiplied by the relevant influencing coefficient. A seven-step methodology is presented to define the model, identify and rate the influencing factors, set indicator functions taking the uncertainties into account, and calculate the influencing coefficients. The proposed methodology is global enough to be usable for a large number of safety instrumented systems and influencing factors. For example, an application regarding safety pressure relief valves is given. The prospect is for more efficient risk management by acting both on systems and influencing factors.     

The use of polymer compounds in the deposits from the combustion of briquettes in domestic heating as an identifier of fuel quality

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - The utilisation of waste wood from furniture production brings new problems connected with an incomplete thermochemical decomposition of additives...     

Five-wheel framework for system-based monitoring of heavy metal pollution in rivers

Sectorial approach for monitoring heavy metal pollution in rivers has failed to report realistic pollution status and associated ecological and human health risks. The increasing spread of heavy metals from different sources and emerging risks to human and environmental health call for reexamining heavy metal pollution monitoring frameworks. Also, the sources, spread, and load of heavy metals in the environment have changed significantly over time, requiring consequent modification in the monitoring frameworks. Therefore, studies on heavy metal monitoring in rivers conducted in the last decade were evaluated for experimental designs, research frameworks, and data presentations. Most studies (∼99%) (i) lacked inclusiveness of all environmental compartments; (ii) focused on “one pollutant – one/two compartment” or sometimes “one pollutant – one compartment – one effect” approach; and (iii) remained “data-rich but information poor.” An ecological approach with integrative system thinking is proposed to develop a holistic approach for monitoring river pollution. It is visualized that heavy metal monitoring, risk analyses, and water management must incorporate tracking pollutants in different environmental compartments of a river (water, sediment, and floodplain/bank soil) and consider correlating it with riverbank land use. The systems-based pollution monitoring and assessment studies will reveal the critical factors that drive heavy metals pollutant movement in ecosystems and associated potential risks to the environment, wildlife, and humans. Also, water quality and pollution indexing tools would help better communicate complex pollution data and associated risks among all stakeholders. Therefore, integrating systems approaches in scientific- and policy-based tools would help sustainably manage the health of rivers, wildlife, and humans.     

A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity

Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.     

Alarming decline of freshwater trigger species in western Mediterranean key biodiversity areas

Theidentification of key biodiversity areas (KBA) was initiated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2004 to overcome taxonomic biases in the selection of important areas for conservation, including freshwater ecosystems. Since then, several KBAs have been identified mainly based on the presence of trigger species (i.e., species that trigger either the vulnerability and or the irreplaceability criterion and thus identify a site as a KBA). However, to our knowledge, many of these KBAs have not been validated. Therefore, classical surveys of the taxa used to identify freshwater KBAs (fishes, molluscs, odonates, and aquatic plants) were conducted in Douro (Iberian Peninsula) and Sebou (Morocco) River basins in the Mediterranean Biodiversity Hotspot. Environmental DNA analyses were undertaken in the Moroccan KBAs. There was a mismatch between the supposed and actual presence of trigger species. None of the trigger species were found in 43% and 50% of all KBAs surveyed in the Douro and Sebou basins, respectively. Shortcomings of freshwater KBA identification relate to flawed or lack of distribution data for trigger species. This situation results from a misleading initial identification of KBAs based on poor (or even inaccurate) ecological information or due to increased human disturbance between initial KBA identification and the present. To improve identification of future freshwater KBAs, we suggest selecting trigger species with a more conservative approach; use of local expert knowledge and digital data (to assess habitat quality, species distribution, and potential threats); consideration of the subcatchment when delineating KBAs boundaries; thoughtful consideration of terrestrial special areas for conservation limits; and periodic field validation.