Blog List

Monday, 24 July 2017

TALK : SAWDUST

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ash hazard when used as fuel[edit]

Some engineers such as Diesel engine can combust sawdust directly (or mixed with fuel) and power your machines, though the ash - which makes a good fertilizer if scattered thinly over a forest from an airplane to replenish the trace-minerals, but dumped into high concentration local pits - can cause an even worse environmental issue. Sillybilly 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hydroponic Use of Sawdust[edit]

Canada has used its cheap supply of sawdust as a medium for hydroponic industry to rasie strawberries and tomatoes. Warning: for logs that have been transported in ocean water, the salt needs to be leached out to make the sawdust useable. Note: red cedar cannot be used as it is toxic to plants.
Sawdust is one of several media that is used in column culture, where the medium is placed in a column that has openings space along the sides where crops like strawberries and tomatoes can grow. Nutrient fluid is driped or pumped from the top, and collected at the bottom for reuse. Occasional adjustments on the nutrient fluid must be made. 71.114.182.236 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
no helpful info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.112.68 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Book: Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent[edit]

Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent was so named because a many of the true tales involve lumberjacks and the impact of timber operation at the turn of the twentieth century. Sawdust is the by-product of cutting timber. Sawdust was used to absorb grease, to clean locomotive engines, to soak up spills on saloon floors and as compost.
This book follows the Sargent family from Vermont in 1860 as they move to Wisconsin. Life was different before there were highways, radio or television, but certain elements of business, economics, politics, religion and education remain the same. Along the way, the family improves its situation by moving from general labor to lumberjacks, to owning farms, to running saloons and operating hotel owners. They also become intertwined with the local lumber baron, W. D. Connor who was the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. Sawdust1885 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent>

Filler[edit]

Add glue and you've got woodfiller. Often used.
Also wood particle and plastic composite materials are becoming more popular. 82.31.207.100 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
YEAH I DID THIS WITH MY DAD ONCE LOL IM VEGETA254 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge in from Wood dust[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge...
On 30 April 2012, Dennisthe2 suggested merging in the Wood dust article. Pro: The wood dust article is short and apt not to grow much and is closely related. Con: Wood dust is produced more from sanding than from saws. If merged would this article need a more generic title, like wood particles? --Bejnar (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
In response to the "not to grow much" claim, check this out. Remember, the article as it stands is just a mini-stub. It is a very notable topic in its own right though.--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Excerpt of a couple of the links:
Yup, not grow much. --Bejnar (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm... can I ask why you feel that way?--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Because you have said most of it right there. Even combining in material from the "Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program" OSHA Directive CPL 03-00-008, (March 11, 2008) and "Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts", OSHA 3371-08 2009, doesn't make much more than a screen full. All of that can be done within a combined article, with the details of combustibility handled in the Combustibility#Combustible dust and Dust explosion articles. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
These two topics are quite unique and different. Sawdust ("a by-product of cutting lumber with a saw") just happens to be the same as wood dust (fine pieces of wood). Also, why would you rather have the information for one topic spread out across the Wikiverse? It seems ridiculous and useless. Even if it did end up in repeating material, what's the harm in that? Sooo many Wikipedia topics overlap, and you'll find duplication of information everywhere you go. What makes this case so different?--Coin945 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you, Coin945, mean when you say Sawdust just happens to be the same as wood dust? I think that that is the point. For me the only question remaining is what should the article be entitled. --Bejnar (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean. Think about it... hmmm... what's another example.....? The point is that sawdust is an article about the by-product of a particular process (cutting lumber with a saw - and if it isn't at the moment, then it should). That by product happened to be wood dust. But the article is specifically about that process and how it results in that dust. Wooddust is the general article that would link off into sawdust. Wooddust is the general name of the stuff, but can also be produced in countless other ways. --Coin945 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Something along the lines of Wood ash and Calcium carbonate - they are essentially the same substance (fine, not really... but it's the first example I found..) but one is made as the result of a process while the second one is the substance in general.
So what you have stated is a good argument for the combined article being entitled "wood dust", as sawdust is a proper subcategory of wood dust. All sawdust is wooddust. Wood ash is not a proper subcategory of Calcium carbonate, nor the reverse. While the main component of wood ash may be CaCO3, as the article points out that is less than half. I still think that there is a good argument to be made for the combined article being entitled "sawdust" as the more common term, although less etymologically precise. The MOS says The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline, for the questions that should be asked about a title.. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Examples of the general use of "sawdust":
Orbital sanders also only require a piece of sandpaper unlike belt sanders and they also suck up the sawdust when sanding through holes in the base of the tool. "Woodwork Basics - A Guide on Power Tools"
Woodworking tools, particularly power sanders, create a considerable amount of airborne sawdust. "How to Make a Dust Collector"
Two methods for collecting sawdust while working on the drill press. One methods collects the chips from above; the other from below. "Collecting Sawdust while Drilling"
What we do is make sure we grind to a foot below ground level, remove the saw dust and back fill with top soil. "Leftover Sawdust From Stump Removal"
So, do you understand my point even if you do not agree with it? --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand what you're saying, and was just about to agree with you, but looking at the sources you've presented (maybe its just to do with the specific ones you chose), but we've got a few unreliable ones chucked in there. Unfortunately, ehow is a Bad Source of Information (told to me by webupon.com and a forum, ironically both of which are unreliable sources in their own right..). You've also got a forum. The YouTube video is questionably legit... I'm still not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policies on Youtube is... but the uploader seems legit. This one seems fine. I guess it all comes down to what's out there and what the general consensus is on the internet. In my personal experience, I have only ever heard the term "sawdust" used in the context of using a high-powered tool (usually a saw) to cut wood, with the excess little bits coming of and the wind blowing them into people's eyes etc. I'd never actually heard the term "wooddust" before but the internet says it is a very well known term and as far as I can see, the "correct" term for this concept. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps while originally only referring to a sawing context, now the term refers to any type of dust coming off wood. I don't know the answer to that. If this turns out to not be the case, I really think this article has merit.--Coin945 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Those examples are not examples of reliable sources for content, they are examples of actual usage by regular English speakers, it is research, which is not allowed for creating articles but which is very much encouraged in meta discussions. Cf. Google counts. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So, what was your point exactly? That the general public uses the term in the wrong context? I'm not sure that this is the correct way to go. I'd like to think that Wikipedia would correct me if I was using a word incorrectly, rather than perpetuate my false usage....--Coin945 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No, not wrong or incorrect usage, just actual usage. Many words in English have outgrown their etymological origins. Take a look, for example, at "skirt" which originally meant a tunic, and which also became the word "shirt". --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge. If at some point in the future, sufficient content is found to separate wood dust from saw dust, then a separate article could be created. Alternately, a single article could be kept at wood dust, then a separate article on Health effects of wood dust could be created in the future, again only once warranted. For now, merge, let the articles grow. I don't have any opinion on saw dust or wood dust, except that sawdust seems to be the more common name, but I'd be ok with either one. --KarlB (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per KarlB. Insufficient notability to warrant its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge, as the original person who suggested this. To explain, I saw this in NPP at the time that I suggested it for a merge, and the rationale to merge into here (versus merging sawdust to wood dust) was simply that this is a more established article. The fact remains, though - sawdust is wood dust, but wood dust isn't always sawdust. I don't feel that there is enough to warrant two separate articles, but I really don't have any feelings as to where one merges to - my desire is to eliminate the redundancy. Both have sufficient resources to warrant an article combined, so by their powers combined.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oga coal[edit]

On 31 January 2012‎ Buster7 added a section entitled "Oga coal", without any documentation as to source, except the enigmatic translated and transferred. It read in full Oga (sawdust) coal, Ogalan, is produced by compressing and molding sawdust under heat into charcoal. Oga coal is uniformly shaped machine-made charcoal. There is a general low awareness of Oga coal and they are often mistaken for charcoal briquettes. There are several problems with these statements: (1) I have found no reliable source documenting use of the term "oga coal". (2) The Japanese term is ogatan (オガ炭), not ogalan, and it means charcoal briquette. (3) Charcoal briquettes are made from sawdust and have been since their invention, see citation in the article's text. (4) The only difference between Japanese charcoal briquettes and American or European charcoal briquettes seems to be the shape. Buster7 seems to have based his material on a poor translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article on charcoal briquettes, ja:オガ炭. Apparently some traditional charcoal-grill restaurants in Japan had started using briquettes instead of real charcoal. Anyway, based on the above mentioned problems, I have deleted the section in its entirety. The picture of ogatan existed in the article before Buster7's edits, and serves as a reasonable example of one of the many uses of sawdust, so I have left it in place. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wood dust once again[edit]

There's currently a draft on wood dust at WP:AFC, apparently written by an expert, well-sourced and very detailed. It is in fact longer than this article, but it's currently stuck in limbo because this article counts as an article on wood dust and we won't create a content fork. The author vehemently argues against a merger; see the discussion at the help desk. He does have a point; wood dust, the particulate matter, is not the same as sawdust, the stuff used on barroom floors or for particle board. Therefore I suggest splitting this article again, with the draft as the basis for the separate article on wood dust. If there are no objections, I'll work on that in a few days. Huon (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
wow. that was some serious snark. Having read through his article, I'm afraid I must agree with your original assessment; this new material (which is good) should be merged. Another option is to have two articles - one called sawdust, and another on Health and environmental impact of wooddust (or similar, since in that case for a purely technical article, the more technical term would be more appropriate); the sawdust article can have the so-called mom&pop stuff, as well as the more detailed technical description of the various particle sizes for wood dust, etc and how it gets created. Also, his assertion that the pros only use wood dust is not true- see this [1]; there are many articles there that use the word sawdust in the context of health issues, talking about sawdust inhalation, etc. But these are still, no matter what his claim, basically two words for essentially the same concept. I understand his point that in certain technical literature, wood dust is used to mean sawdust made up of small particles, but in common usage outside the technical literature these terms are frequently used one for the other, and sawdust is clearly the more common term. Consensus may change, and in the future the article may be moved to wood dust, but for now a merge makes sense, or a split focused on the item (e.g. sawdust), how it's made, and how it's used, and then a second article, linked from the first, on environmental and health impacts of same. --KarlB (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For further information log on website :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sawdust
at No comments:

SAWDUST

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Sawdust (disambiguation).
Sawdust made with hand saw
Ogatan, Japanese charcoal briquettes made from sawdust
Sawdust or wood dust is a by-product of cutting, grinding, drilling, sanding, or otherwise pulverizing wood or any other material with a saw or other tool; it is composed of fine particles of wood. It is also the byproduct of certain animals, birds and insects which live in wood, such as the woodpecker and carpenter ant. It can present a hazard in manufacturing industries, especially in terms of its flammability. Sawdust is the main component of particleboard.

Uses[edit]

A major use of sawdust is for particleboard; coarse sawdust may be used for wood pulp. Sawdust has a variety of other practical uses, including serving as a mulch, as an alternative to clay cat litter, or as a fuel. Until the advent of refrigeration, it was often used in icehouses to keep ice frozen during the summer. It has been used in artistic displays, and as scatter in miniature railroad and other models. It is also sometimes used to soak up liquid spills, allowing the spill to be easily collected or swept aside. As such, it was formerly common on barroom floors.[1] It is used to make Cutler's resin. Mixed with water and frozen, it forms pykrete, a slow-melting, much stronger form of ice.
Sawdust is used in the manufacture of charcoal briquettes. The claim for invention of the first commercial charcoal briquettes goes to Henry Ford who created them from the wood scraps and sawdust produced by his automobile factory.[2]

Use in food[edit]

Cellulose, fibre starch that is indigestible to humans, and a filler in some low calorie foods, can be and is made from sawdust, as well as from other plant sources.[3] While there is no documentation[4] for the persistent rumor, based upon Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle, that sawdust was used as a filler in sausage, cellulose derived from sawdust was and is used for sausage casings.[5] Sawdust-derived cellulose has also been used as a filler in bread.[6]
Auschwitz concentration camp survivor, Dr. Miklós Nyiszli, reports in Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account that the subaltern medical staff, who served Dr. Josef Mengele, subsisted on "bread made from wild chestnuts sprinkled with sawdust."[7]

Health and safety hazards[edit]

Airborne sawdust and sawdust accumulations present a number of health and safety hazards.[8] Wood dust becomes a potential health problem when, for example, the wood particles, from processes such as sanding, become airborne and are inhaled. Wood dust is a known human carcinogen.[9][10] Certain woods and their dust contain toxins that can produce severe allergic reactions.[11]
Water-borne bacteria digest organic material in leachate, but use up much of the available oxygen. This high "biological oxygen demand" can suffocate fish and other organisms. There is an equally detrimental effect on beneficial bacteria, so it is not at all advisable to use sawdust within home aquariums, as was once done by hobbyists seeking to save some expense on activated charcoal.
People can be exposed to wood dust in the workplace by breathing it in, skin contact, or eye contact. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set the legal limit (permissible exposure limit) for wood dust exposure in the workplace as 15 mg/m3 total exposure and 5 mg/m3 respiratory exposure over an 8-hour workday. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 1 mg/m3 over an 8-hour workday.[12]

Explosions and fire[edit]

Main articles: Combustibility § Combustible dust, and Dust explosion
Sawdust is flammable and accumulations provide a ready source of fuel. Airborne sawdust can be ignited by sparks or even heat accumulation and result in explosions.

Environmental effects[edit]

At sawmills, unless reprocessed into particleboard, burned in a sawdust burner or used to make heat for other milling operations, sawdust may collect in piles and add harmful leachates into local water systems, creating an environmental hazard. This has placed small sawyers and environmental agencies in a deadlock.
Questions about the science behind the determination of sawdust being an environmental hazard remain for sawmill operators (though this is mainly with finer particles), who compare wood residuals to dead trees in a forest. Technical advisors have reviewed some of the environmental studies, but say most lack standardized methodology or evidence of a direct impact on wildlife. They don’t take into account large drainage areas, so the amount of material that is getting into the water from the site in relation to the total drainage area is minuscule.[citation needed]
Other scientists have a different view, saying the "dilution is the solution to pollution" argument is no longer accepted in environmental science. The decomposition of a tree in a forest is similar to the impact of sawdust, but the difference is of scale. Sawmills may be storing thousands of cubic metres of wood residues in one place, so the issue becomes one of concentration.[citation needed]
But of larger concern are substances such as lignins and fatty acids that protect trees from predators while they are alive, but can leach into water and poison wildlife. Those types of things remain in the tree and, as the tree decays, they slowly are broken down. But when sawyers are processing a large volume of wood and large concentrations of these materials permeate into the runoff, the toxicity they cause is harmful to a broad range of organisms.[13]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Felman, David (2005) "Why Did Bars Used to Put Sawdust on the Floor? Why Don't They Anymore?" Why Do Elephant's Jump? HarperCollins, New York, page 118, ISBN 978-0-06-053914-6, quoting Christopher Halleron, bartender and beer columnist.
  2. Jump up^ Green, Harvey (2006) Wood: Craft, Culture, History Penguin Books, New York, page 403, ISBN 978-1-1012-0185-5
  3. Jump up^ Nassauer, Sarah (4 May 2011). "Why Wood Pulp Makes Ice Cream Creamier". The Wall Street Journal.
  4. Jump up^ Packing houses formerly purchased large quantities of sawdust for the cutting room floors, and still purchase sawdust for use as a fuel and flavoring in the smoking process.
  5. Jump up^ Savic, I. V. (1985). "Small-scale sausage production: Sausage Casings". Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
  6. Jump up^ "Bread Labels on Wood Fiber Draw Attack". Los Angeles Times. 9 October 1985. Archived from the original on 16 September 2010.
  7. Jump up^ Nyiszli, Miklos (2011). "3". Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account. New York: Arcade Publishing. p. 34.
  8. Jump up^ "Wood Dust Exposure". State Compensation Insurance Fund. Retrieved April 30, 2012.
  9. Jump up^ "Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, Wood Dust" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2014.
  10. Jump up^ "FINAL Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Wood Dust" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2014.
  11. Jump up^ Meier, Eric. "Wood Allergies and Toxicity". The Wood Database.
  12. Jump up^ "CDC - NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards - Wood dust". www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  13. Jump up^ Canadian Geographic Online

 For further information log on website :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawdust
at No comments:

Evolution of waste management strategies in industries: from passive to proactive

Author
Hailu Terefe*, Temesgen Gashaw and Bikila Warkineh
*Center for Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Accepted 10 August, 2015.
Citation: Terefe H, Gashaw T, Workineh B (2015). Evolution of waste management strategies in industries: from passive to proactive. Journal of Environment and Waste Management 2(3): 084-090.
Copyright: © 2015 Terefe et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.
Abstract
This paper is a review of various articles and documents on development of waste management approaches in industries. It provides information on advancement of waste management approaches as human awareness to environment increases and demonstrates the benefits of proactive waste management measures in industries. Most polluting industries in the world were established by the time the earth had the capacity to provide raw materials and absorb wastes. However, with increasing industrialization and urbanization virgin raw materials seriously declined and waste loads dramatically increased. As a result waste management strategies progressively evolved. In 1960s waste avoidance measures through foul and flee, dilute and disperse, concentrate and contain; in 1970s purification units at the end of emission pipes; in 1980s resource recovery through recycling and energy saving strategies were used as solutions to the problem of wastes on the environment. Furthermore, from 1990s onwards proactive measures by Cleaner Production technologies focusing on the source of waste generation to reduce, reuse and recycle wastes into valuable resources became the best solution for sustainable management of wastes and to enhance the performance of industries. Cleaner production technologies assured marvelous evidences for sustainable development by allowing industries to produce more efficiently and gain incredible economic, environmental and social benefits with less input utilization and less environmental impacts.
For further details log on website :
https://premierpublishers.org/jewm/280820152917
at No comments:

Effect of treated domestic wastewater as source of irrigation water and nutrients on rice performance in Morogoro, Tanzania

Author
Agnes MS Nyomora
Department of Botany, University of Daressalaam, P.O. Box 35060, Tanzania.
Accepted 19 January, 2015. 
Citation: Nyomora AMS (2015). Effect of treated domestic wastewater as source of irrigation water and nutrients on rice performance in Morogoro, Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Waste Management 2(2): 047-055.
Copyright: © 2014 Nyomora AMS. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.
Abstract
A study was conducted in Morogoro, Tanzania to assess the effect of treated wastewater as an alternative source of irrigation water and nutrients for rice. Wastewater was sourced from a local wastewater Stabilization Ponds and cleaned through a Constructed Wetland. Four treatments namely, (i) Waste water (WW) only (ii) WW + NPK (iii) Tap water only (iv) Tap water + NPK were tested in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 4 replicates. Rice, variety Saro 5 was planted in August 2013.Data was collected on physical-chemical and biological qualities of the WW, and soils, yield and yield components. Analysis of variance and Least Significant Difference (LSD) on yield were conducted (p≤0.05) using INSTAT software. WW had alkaline pH of 8.2 and acceptable levels of physical-chemical-biological components. WW only treated rice resulted in higher yields over non-treated rice. The combination of WW and NPK was not as effective especially for flowering, grain size and total yield indicative of nutrients overloading.  Tap water only treated rice yielded 1.3 tons/ha while WW treated rice yielded 5.44 ton/ha mostly through promotion of higher number of fertile tillers while a combination of WW and NPK depressed yield potential to only 1.7 ton/ha. Effectiveness of WW for irrigation is acknowledged.
For further details log on website :
https://premierpublishers.org/jewm/020320156324
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...