Legacy and alternative halogenated flame retardants in Lake Geneva fish

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Legacy (i.e., polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)) and alternative halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) were...     

Preparation of Viscose Fibres Stripped of Reactive Dyes and Wrinkle-Free Crosslinked Cotton Textile Finish

The chemical recycling of cellulosic fibres may represent a next-generation fibre–fibre recycling system for cotton textiles, though remaining challenges include how to accommodate fibre blends, dyes, wrinkle-free finishes, and other impurities from finishing. These challenges may disrupt the regeneration process steps and reduce the fibre quality. This study examines the impact on regenerated viscose fibre properties of a novel alkaline/acid bleaching sequence to strip reactive dyes and dimethyloldihydroxyethyleneureas (DMDHEU) wrinkle-free finish from cotton textiles. Potentially, such a bleaching sequence could advantageously be integrated into the viscose process, reducing the costs and environmental impact of the product. The study investigates the spinning performance and mechanical properties (e.g., tenacity and elongation) of the regenerated viscose fibres. The alkaline/acid bleaching sequence was found to strip the reactive dye and DMDHEU wrinkle-free finish from the cotton fabric, so the resulting pulp could successfully be spun into viscose fibres, though the mechanical properties of these fibres were worse than those of commercial viscose fibres. This study finds that reactive dyes and DMDHEU wrinkle-free finish affect the viscose dope quality and the regeneration performance. The results might lead to progress in overcoming quality challenges in cellulosic chemical recycling.     

The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Overestimation of self-reported driving exposure: Results from the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study

Objectives: The accuracy of self-reported driving exposure has questioned the validity of using self-reported mileage to inform research questions. Studies examining the accuracy of self-reported driving exposure compared to objective measures find low validity, with drivers overestimating and underestimating driving distance. The aims of the current study were to (1) examine the discrepancy between self-reported annual mileage and driving exposure the following year and (2) investigate whether these differences depended on age and annual mileage.

Methods: Two estimates of drivers’ self-reported annual mileage collected during vehicle installation (obtained via prestudy questionnaires) and approximated annual mileage driven (based upon Global Positioning System data) were acquired from 3,323 participants who participated in the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) Naturalistic Driving Study.

Results: A Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was a significant difference between self-reported and annual driving exposure during participation in SHRP 2, with the majority of self-reported responses overestimating annual mileage the following year, irrespective of whether an ordinal or ratio variable was examined. Over 15% of participants provided self-reported responses with over 100% deviation, which were exclusive to participants underestimating annual mileage. Further, deviations in reporting differed between participants who had low, medium, and high exposure, as well as between participants in different age groups.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that although self-reported annual mileage is heavily relied on for research, such estimates of driving distance may be an overestimate of current or future mileage and can influence the validity of prior research that has utilized estimates of driving exposure.