Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Informal electronic waste (e-waste) dismantling activities contribute to releasing hazardous compounds in the environment and potential exposure to humans and their health. These hazardous compounds include persistent organic pollutants (POPs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. This review searched papers addressing hazardous compounds emitted from e-waste recycling activities and their health effects in Vietnam. Based on the keywords searched in three electronic databases (PubMed, Psych Info, and Google scholar), we found 21 relevant studies in Vietnam. The review identifies extensive e-waste dismantling activities in Vietnam in the northern region. To measure the environmental exposure to hazardous compounds, samples such as e-waste recycling workshop dust, soil, air, and sediments were assessed, while human exposure levels were measured using participants' hair, serum, or breast milk samples. Studies that compared levels of exposure in e-waste recycling sites and reference sites indicated higher levels of PBDEs, PCBs, and heavy metals were observed in both environmental and human samples from participants in e-waste recycling sites. Among environmental samples, hazardous chemicals were the most detected in dust from e-waste recycling sites. Considering both environmental and human samples, the highest exposure difference observed with PBDE ranged from 2-48-fold higher in e-waste processing sites than in the reference sites. PCBs showed nearly 3-fold higher levels in e-waste processing sites than in reference sites. In the e-waste processing sites, age-specific higher PCB levels were observed in older recycler's serum samples. Among the heavy metals, Pb was highly detected in drinking water, indoor soil and human blood samples. While high detection of Ni in cooked rice, Mn in soil and diet, Zn in dust and As in urine were apparent. Exposure assessment from human biomonitoring showed participants, including children and mothers from the e-waste processing areas, had higher carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks than the reference sites. This review paper highlights the importance of further comprehensive studies on risk assessments of environmentally hazardous substances and their association with health outcomes at e-waste processing sites.

ABSTRACTThe atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique or approach for the restoration of primary and permanent teeth has been widely adopted in, but not limited to, developing countries. However, the requirement for the placement of the restorative materials under often less‐than‐ideal conditions imposes significant restrictions on their selection; and there have been very few randomized clinical trials or reports comparing different types of restorative materials and treatments. Although conventional glass‐ionomer cements (GICs) have relatively poor mechanical and adhesive strengths, their satisfactory biological features, ease of use, and low costs are distinct advantages. Most of the published reports of the clinical performance of the newer, high‐strength esthetic conventional GICs specifically marketed for the ART approach have been from short‐term studies. Satisfactory clinical performance has been demonstrated for single‐surface posterior restorations only, over three years. Findings indicate that further improvements in restorative materials are still required for their use with the ART approach, together with further clinical investigations of the remineralization of shallow open caries lesions, as an alternative to placing definitive restorations.

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

This document contains the draft Chapter 1 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters. IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copy editing.

Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

18-1802-152800-CSD UIDB/04085/2020 ; The COVID-19 pandemic has caused dramatic and unprecedented impacts on both global health and economies. Many governments are now proposing recovery packages to get back to normal, but the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Global Assessment indicated that business as usual has created widespread ecosystem degradation. Therefore, a post-COVID world needs to tackle the economic drivers that create ecological disruptions. In this perspective, we discuss a number of tools across a range of actors for both short-term stimulus measures and longer-term revamping of global, national, and local economies that take biodiversity into account. These include measures to shift away from activities that damage biodiversity and toward those supporting ecosystem resilience, including through incentives, regulations, fiscal policy, and employment programs. By treating the crisis as an opportunity to reset the global economy, we have a chance to reverse decades of biodiversity and ecosystem losses. ; publishersversion ; published

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. ; Fil: Chan, Kai M. A. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Boyd, David R. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania ; Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Singh, Gerald G. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania ; Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago ; Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia ; Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia ; Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido ; Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá ; Fil: Cheung, William W. L. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina ; Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gregr, Edward J. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón ; Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba ; Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania ; Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto ; Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana ; Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España ; Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía ; Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania ; Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania ; Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil ; Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China ; Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S. Indiana University; Estados Unidos