The relative performance of various wildland fire suppressant products had previously been assessed using the Crib Test Methodology. This InfoNote presents an addition to the dataset wherein the performance of Barricade II, a Qualified Product List (QPL) approved water-enhancer product, is reviewed.
Two long-term retardant products have recently been added to the U.S. Forest Service’s Qualified Product List (QPL). Anecdotal evidence from field trials suggest that interoperability issues may exist between existing and new retardant products available for use in fixed-wing aircrafts. This InfoNote intends to present the current state of knowledge on this topic.
Our goal: Predict the risk to biotreatment of a new mill chemical product
Most pulp and paper facilities treat their wastewaters through biotreatment systems that rely on the presence of microorganisms. Mill process chemicals are usually a complex mixture of the active ingredient, enhancement additives and manufacturing impurities. There is almost always a refractory portion that will be released into biotreatment. If these refractory chemicals negatively affect the operation of the biotreatment systems microbiota, there will be a risk of non-compliance with environmental regulations. New chemicals and additives are constantly being proposed to pulp and paper manufacturers to improve properties or lower costs. Their usage potentially can pose a risk to the functioning of biotreatment. Thus, it is important to assess their risk before their use at a mill.
FPInnovations has established a test to predict the risk a chemical or additive might pose to the mill specific biotreatment before its use.
OUR SERVICE
FPInnovations has developed the Medium-term Biomass Toxicity test to predict the risk a chemical or additive might pose to the health of a mill specific biomass of a wastewater treatment system before its use.
Abstract
Notre objectif : Prédire le risque pour le biotraitement associé à un nouveau produit chimique en usine La majorité des usines de pâtes et papiers traitent leurs eaux usées à l’aide de systèmes de biotraitement qui nécessitent la présence de microorganismes. Les produits chimiques nécessaires aux procédés des usines forment habituellement un mélange complexe d’ingrédients actifs, d’additifs et d’impuretés de fabrication. Il y a presque toujours une fraction réfractaire qui est rejetée dans le biotraitement; si ces produits chimiques réfractaires nuisent au fonctionnement du microbiote du système, il y a un risque de non-conformité aux règles sur l’environnement. De nouveaux produits chimiques et additifs sont constamment proposés aux fabricants de pâtes et papiers pour améliorer les propriétés ou réduire les coûts. Comme leur usage peut poser un risque pour le fonctionnement du biotraitement, il est important d’évaluer ce risque avant de les utiliser en usine.
FPInnovations a mis au point un essai pour prédire, avant son utilisation, le risque qu’un produit chimique ou additif peut poser au biotraitement particulier d’une usine.
NOTRE SERVICE
FPInnovations a mis au point l’essai de toxicité à moyen terme pour la biomasse afin de prédire le risque qu’un produit chimique ou un additif peut représenter pour la santé de la biomasse particulière du système de traitement des eaux usées d’une usine, avant son utilisation.
Relative humidity (RH) and temperature play a large role in the moisture content of available fuels, affecting the fire weather indices that indicate intensity, ignition, and spread potential of wildfires. However, the magnitude of increase in RH and decrease in temperature necessary to impact intensity and ignition potential is dependent on many additional factors including aspect, altitude, wind speed, atmospheric stability, fuel loading, fuel structure, and moisture content of the fuels.
Forest fuel reductions treatments are conducted at a stand level in the wildland–urban interface to reduce the potential for catastrophic loss caused by wildfire. Given the considerable expense of conducting these fuel treatments, fuels managers want to better understand the productivity and cost of commonly applied fuel treatments in order to prescribe cost-effective treatment techniques. Due to the limited data available and the myriad combinations of fuel treatment options and equipment types used in a diverse range of ecosystems, cost projections for fuel treatments are difficult to forecast reliably.
This document provides background on and fundamental principles of productivity studies, and a summary of motor-manual productivity studies that have been conducted in timber silviculture operations, forest fuel reduction treatments, and other manual forestry operations.
Forest fuel treatments are conducted at a stand level in the wildland–urban interface to reduce the potential for catastrophic loss caused by wildfire. Given the considerable expense of conducting motor-manual fuel treatments, fuels managers want to better understand the productivity and cost of commonly applied fuel treatments in order to prescribe cost-effective treatment techniques. Due to the limited data available and the myriad combinations of fuel treatment options and equipment types used in a diverse range of ecosystems, cost projections for fuel treatments are difficult to forecast reliably.
Fuels managers and Wildfire Operations advisory members asked that a simplified data collection protocol be developed to collect more data across a broader range of ecosites. The streamlined and simplified process presented in this document includes a user-friendly format for in-field data collection by field crew supervisors.
