17th April 2016
Pollution Prevention Practices in Oregon’s Electronics Industry
The article Pollution Prevention Practices in Oregon’s Electronics Industry mainly focuses on the identification of the various pollution prevention plans that are currently being used in the electronics industry in Oregon. The article also goes further to assess the industry’s interest to switch to other practices that are less hazardous. A survey was carried out in about 180 businesses and the results obtained indicated that approximately 47% of the companies that responded had attempted to substitute the less hazardous compounds for the previously used practices (Jones & Harding, 1997). Some of the factors that have been seen to greatly influence the move towards greener practices include the desire to find safer products, safer concerns as well as long term benefits in business.
There are a number of benefits that can be realized from the use of pollution prevention in the electronics industry. The electronics industry has been identified as being the leading polluter of the environment in Oregon. The use of this strategy will help to reduce the level of poisoning that result from the use of heavy metals as well as chemicals associated with the electronics industry (Jones & Harding, 1997). Studies have shown that the use of photoresist solvents has been a major cause of miscarriages and other reproductive health complications among workers who work in chip factories. It is important to apply pollution prevention to improve on the reproductive health of the employees. Thirdly, the release of dopant gases and heavy metals that are widely used in the electronics industry will be greatly reduced through the use of prevention measures (Freeman, 1995).
Some of the specific process modifications that have been discussed in the article include the control of crystal growth formation on the silicon chips to reduce the need for sandblasting, reduction of the water slicing process which yields thinner and more uniform slices as well as selection of less hazardous production processes for operations. The substitute chemicals identified in the article include hot water as an alternative for Freon products and degreasers and also substituting eco nuts for scrap office paper, butcher paper and real popcorn paper for packing materials.
The economics of switching to less hazardous materials include saving on the cost of operation, availability of much safer products and higher revenues from the sale of safe products. Some of the reasons identified to cause companies not to embrace pollution prevention include the fact that the new products and processes did not work as well as the old ones; Others did not believe that their current products were hazardous; Some indicated that the cost of conversion was very high while others felt no pressure from the authorities to switch.
Jones, C. L., & Harding, A. K. (1997). Pollution prevention practices in Oregon’s electronics industry. Journal of Environmental Health, 59(6), 21.
Freeman, H. M. (1995). Industrial pollution prevention handbook.
Optimal Deployment of Emissions Reduction Technologies for Construction Equipment
The article aims at developing a multi-objective optimization model that deploys emission reduction technologies for different non-road construction equipment. The approach will be instrumental in the reduction of emissions in a manner that is cost effective and produces optimal results (Bari et al., 2011). The model is based on cost effectiveness analysis and uses three different technologies to demonstrate the applicability of this approach. The structure of the model is quite flexible and can therefore be adapted and applied in any kind of emission reduction technology. It can also be implemented for the on road and non-road emissions (Bari et al., 2011).
Hydrogen Enrichment (HE) technologies are mainly involved with the creation of a better frame front in the engines of motor vehicles. They help to reduce the emission that result from combustion within the engine. Hydrogen Enrichment (HE) systems help to reduce the amount of nitrogen dioxide and carbon emissions while at the same time reduce the rate of fuel consumption in the engine (Farzaneh, Memisoglu & Kianfar, 2012). The selective catalytic reduction technologies on the other hand have the capability to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides, PM and HC emissions. They normally operate through the recirculation of portions of an engine’s exhaust gas into combustion chambers. Fuel additive technologies are capable of reducing the PM emissions. They are capable of reducing the emission levels and improving the engine economy. Some of the manufacturers assert that the technologies reduce the emission of nitrogen oxides, HC, PM and carbon.
There are a number of advantages associated with HE, SCR, and FA. First, collectively, they allow the minimization of the risk posed by the emission of hazardous waste out into the environment. HE reduces the consumption of fuels while optimizing the performance of the engine. Fuel additive technologies on the other hand reduce the PM emissions. In regard to the economics of cost, these technologies contribute to the reduction of the amount spent on the purchase of fuel. With a reduced level of consumption, motorists spend less on fuel. The computer model proposed in the research does a good job in the determination of each technology. This is because it allows for comparisons to be made on the output of the different models making it possible to pick out the best model. The three technologies are applicable and well suited for the motor vehicle engines (Farzaneh, Memisoglu & Kianfar, 2012). The SCR technology is one of the most cost effective and poses the minimum amount of risk to the engines. This technology is recommended for use by manufacturers in the auto industry.
Bari, M. E., Zietsman, J., Quadrifoglio, L., & Farzaneh, M. (2011). Optimal deployment of emissions reduction technologies for construction equipment.Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 61(6), 611-630.
Farzaneh, M., Memisoglu, G., & Kianfar, K. (2012). Optimal Deployment of Emission Reduction Technologies for Large Fleets. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2287), 18-26.
Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art
The article Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art focuses on the coal fired electricity generating plants which have a tendency to use SO2 scrubbers in order to be able to meet the requirements of the phase 2 of the Acid Rain SO2 reduction program. The use of scrubbers is likely to result into the reduction of mercury and other emissions that are produced from combustion sources. The authors focus on the examination of the current status of the SO2 technologies. The article presents a comprehensive review of the state of art in the flue gas desulfurization technologies for various coal fired boilers. Additional focus is made on to the Lime Spray Drying (LSD) as it is a technique used by many FDG technologies.
In Gas desulfurization (FDG) technologies, they can be classified as regenerable depending on the manner in which the sorbents are treated. These technologies are of two types including the once through technologies whereby the sorbent is disposed of as waste. In the regenerable technologies applications, there is no waste produced. Bothe the once through and the regenerable are part of the FDG technologies (Srivastava & Jozewicz, 2001). This technology is mainly used to aid in the achievement of the requirements of the phase 2 of the Acid Rain SO2 reduction program.
In the once through wet FDG technology, SO2 that contains gas and thereafter comes into contact with alkaline aqueous slurry within the absorber. The slurry is normally generated from the use of either lime or limestone. The most commonly used absorber application is the countercurrent vertically oriented spray tower. Within the absorber, the SO2 dissolves into the slurry and this initiates the reaction with the alkaline particles. The effluent of the slurry contains SO2. It is held within the tanks and is able to provide retention time for the finely ground lime. In regard to the once through dry FDG technologies, the SO2 that contains the flue gas contacts the alkaline sorbent (Srivastava & Jozewicz, 2001). The result is the production of dry waste. The sorbent material can be delivered to the flue gas in aqueous form or as a dry powder.
In the MEL process, the sorbent is normally prepared in the same way as the process followed in the LSD. Thereafter, the sorbent gets into contact with the flue gas within an absorber that is similar to the typical LSFO absorber. The MEL sorbent is much more reactive as compared to the MEL absorber and as a result, much less residence time is required within the MEL absorber. This article can be of great importance to pollution prevention managers. This is because it provides more insight about the contribution of coal power plants to the effluent that is released out into the environment. The information contained here within can be of great importance in strategizing on preventative measures. Best available technologies are useful in the control of emissions. (Krigmont et al., 1986) The regenerable processes are considered to be part of the Best available technologies (BAT).
Srivastava, R. K., & Jozewicz, W. (2001). Flue gas desulfurization: the state of the art. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 51(12), 1676-1688.
Krigmont, H. V., Haaland, H. H., Triscori, R. J., Spencer III, H. W., & Stern, J. L. (1986). U.S. Patent No. 4,571,330. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.