Examples of using Persistent toxicity in English and their translations into Danish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
There is almost no change in persistent toxicity at only 0.1 per cent.
In the use phase, primarily washing agents result in potential persistent toxicity.
Persistent toxicity is reduced by just less than 1 per cent, which is also the case for ecotoxicity.
Here, the fabric softener contributes with just under 10 per cent to ecotoxicity and 0.7 per cent to persistent toxicity.
Persistent toxicity increases by 3 per cent, ecotoxicity is unchanged, while human toxicity increases by 100 per cent.
The most significant factors in this calculation are the ecotoxicity and the persistent toxicity from cotton cultivation.
Persistent toxicity is increased by about 30 per cent compared with the reference scenario, while ecotoxicity is increased by approx.
This means that the production phase has a net negative contribution to ecotoxicity and persistent toxicity impact potentials.
Persistent toxicity is reduced by about 80-85 per cent, while ecotoxicity is reduced by up to 95 per cent compared with the reference scenario.
In the pre-treatment processes carriers, dyes andfabric softeners cause the contributions to ecotoxicity and persistent toxicity.
In the dyeing process alone persistent toxicity is reduced by 60 per cent by removing the equivalency factors, while the ecotoxicity potential is slightly increased.
Even though the amounts of persistent substances emitted during the first100 years are small, they increase the potential for persistent toxicity.
On the other hand there is no doubt that the lack ofdata for human toxicity, ecotoxicity, and persistent toxicity of carbon disulphide can be relevant for the appearance of figure 4.6.
The figure shows that the choice of a less toxic carrier has an impact of approx. 5 per cent for ecotoxicity, while it is approx.1 per cent for persistent toxicity.
Detergents in washing agents result in contributions primarily to human toxicity and persistent toxicity. Moreover, there is a small contribution to ecotoxicity primarily from alcohol ethoxylate.
The impact potentials in connection with wash of the work jacket primarily originate from detergents in washing agents,which result in potential human and persistent toxicity.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the lack ofdata for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and persistent toxicity for carbon disulphide could be significant for the overall toxicological environmental profile of the product.
On the other hand, there is some uncertainty of the significance of the lack of data for the above on the amount of human toxicity, ecotoxicity and persistent toxicity for the appearance of figure 5.4.
Persistent toxicity is increased by about 30 per cent compared with the reference scenario, while ecotoxicity is increased by approx. 7 per cent, and human toxicity is unchanged.
Compared with the producer reference, the contribution to ecotoxicity increases by almost 2 per cent, while the contribution to persistent toxicity increases by almost 1 per cent.
Persistent toxicity is increased by about 170 per cent compared with the reference scenario, while ecotoxicity is increased by approx. 15 per cent, and human toxicity is increased by 800 per cent.
If only the contributions to toxicological environmental impacts from the dyeing process are considered, there is an increase of 130 per cent in human toxicity, 11 per cent in ecotoxicity and50 per cent in persistent toxicity.
The toxicological environmental impacts are significantly increased when dry-cleaning is selected instead of industrial wash. Persistent toxicity is increased by about 170 per cent compared with the reference scenario, while ecotoxicity is increased by approx.
An increase in persistent toxicity of 92 per cent is thus not a clear indication of the actual difference between the two washing methods, but merely an indication that there will be increased consumption of washing agent in this scenario and thus increased toxicity. .
Emissions are assessed in relation to their potential to contribute to the following environmental impacts: greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, acidification,nutrient salts load, persistent toxicity, ecotoxicity, toxicity for humans, and a number of waste parameters.