| 1. |
- Arm, Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Waste and Biomass Valorization. - : Springer Netherlands. - 1877-2641 .- 1877-265X. ; 8:5, s. 1491-1504
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a 70 % target for recovery of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. In order to study the potential change in the resource management of the main C&D waste fractions, as a consequence of fulfilling the WFD target, a Nordic project (ENCORT-CDW) has been performed. Waste fractions studied included asphalt, concrete, bricks, track ballast, gypsum-based construction materials and wood. Recovery scenarios were identified and estimations were made regarding expected savings of primary materials, impact on transport, and pollution and emissions. For wood waste, the main differences between re-use, material recycling and energy recovery were evaluated in a carbon footprint screening based on life cycle assessment methodology. The study concluded that the EU recovery target does not ensure a resource efficient and environmentally sustainable waste recovery in its present form since: It is very sensitive to how the legal definitions of waste and recovery are interpreted in the Member States. This means that certain construction material cycles might not count in the implementation reports while other, less efficient and environmentally safe, recovery processes of the same material will count. It is weight-based and consequently favours large and heavy waste streams. The result is that smaller flows with equal or larger resource efficiency and environmental benefit will be insignificant for reaching the target. It does not distinguish between the various recovery processes, meaning that resource efficient and environmentally safe recovery cannot be given priority. Improved knowledge on C&D waste generation and handling, as well as on content and emissions of dangerous substances, is required to achieve a sustainable recovery.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nestorson, Jens, 1969-
(författare)
-
Arthroplasty in Elbow Fracture Treatment
- 2018
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Open reduction and internal fixation is the treatment of choice for distal humeral fractures. Stable fixation is required to allow early mobilisation and to reduce the risk of poor functional results. In an elderly patient with osteoporotic bone and with a comminuted intra-articular fracture stable internal fixation can be difficult to achieve. In these cases elbow arthroplasty is an option.An irreparable radial head fracture can be treated by excision or replacement. The indications for the respective procedure are unclear since reports include an array of different associated soft-tissue and bony injuries.The aim of this thesis was to evaluate the use, complication rates and functional outcome of elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for complex distal humeral fractures and assess the usefulness of radial head replacement in Mason IV fracture dislocations.50 patients, aged 56-89 years were treated for a distal humeral fracture with primary hemi-arthroplasty using the Kudo© humeral component or the Latitude® prosthesis. The functional outcome was assessed retrospectively. The majority of the 50 patients treated with a primary hemi-arthroplasty for a distal humeral fracture had a good or excellent functional result and regained a functional arc of movement of at least 100 degrees at medium term follow-up. There were six patients suffering secondary surgery and two with persistent ulnar nerve symptoms. Wear of the olecranon fossa was seen, mainly in the eight patients treated with a non-anatomical implant (Kudo®). Functional results were comparable to total elbow arthroplasty and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for distal humeral fractures. The use of implants that are more anatomical seemed to reduce the degree of olecranon wear but long-term results are lacking.The nationwide use of primary arthroplasty for a distal humeral fracture between 1999 and 2014 was examined using three different registers. The survival rates in relation to prosthetic desing, age and sex were investigated using Cox regression analysis and number of adverse events recorded.In total 405 patients were treated with primary arthroplasty for a distal humeral fracture. The mean age at surgery was 75 years and the mean observation time was 67 months. Eighteen patients had undergone revision surgery and another 26 patients suffered an adverse event, 24 of which required secondary surgery.Increasing age reduced the risk for revision and there was no significant difference in survival between total- and hemi arthroplasty. The cumulative survival rate at 5 years was 99% (CI 98-100) and at 10 years 90% (CI 85-96). Elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures produced reliable results with regards to revision surgery and adverse events.18 patients, age 19-79 years, treated with radial head replacement, and 14 patients, age 29-70 years, treated with radial head resection, for a Mason IV fracture dislocation were retrospectively reviewed.There were no significant differences in functional outcome in patients treated with replacement or excision for a Mason IV fracture dislocation. The rate of secondary surgery was higher in patients treated with replacement and ulno-humeral osteoarthritis was more pronounced in patients treated with radial head excision but follow-up was longer in these patients. Functional results were not improved by using radial head arthroplasty for Mason IV fracture dislocation. Secondary osteoarthritis is a concern in patients treated with excision but did not affect functional outcome after a mean follow-up time of 108 months.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wahlström, Ann, et al.
(författare)
-
Steering towards the environmental objectives : The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s in-depth evaluation of the environmental objectives 2015
- 2015
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- IN 2014, THE SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS COMMISSIONED by the Governmentto present an in-depth evaluation of the scope to achieve the environmental quality objectives and the generational goal. The evaluation provides a basis for the Government’s policies and priorities and for the government agencies’ planning and development processes. It can also provide guidance for the environmental efforts of various stakeholders. Overall, the evaluation will help us to accelerate the progress being made towards achieving the environmental objectives.The report contains summary analyses for each of the 16 environmental quality objectives and a cross-objective analysis. The Agency presents prioritised proposals for initiatives, aimed in the first instance at the Government. The report on the government assignment was prepared independently by the Agency and we are entirely responsible for the conclusions and proposals presented therein.The report on the government assignment was primarily based on:• Analysis and assessment of the 16 environmental quality objectives.• Syntheses of the societal transition within the focus areas concerning sustainable consumption, sustainable urban development and the environmental work of the business sector.• Cross-objective analysis of the environmental objectives.Within the Agency, Ann Wahlström and Ola Larsson (November 2013 – June 2014) and Jenny Oltner (August 2014 – June 2015) acted as project leader for the government assignment. The report on the government assignment was prepared by Ann Wahlström, Hans Wrådhe and Emelie Aurell.Working with others to monitor and evaluate the state of the environment, the progress being made with the environmental work and what we are doing to get closer to achieving the objectives represents one of the Agency’s key tasks. Collaboration with other government agencies and organisations was vital in order to prepare this report on the in-depth evaluation for 2015. The Agency would like to thank all contributors for their commitment and contributions.Stockholm, 22 October 2015Björn RisingerDirector General
|
|
