Report

Monitoring long-range transboundary air pollution 2009. Summary report. NIVA-rapport, 5896-2010

Schartau, A.K.; Fjellheim, A.; Walseng, B.; Skjelkvåle, B.L.; Framstad, E.; Halvorsen, G.A.; Kålås, J.A.; Nordbakken, J-F.; Yttri, K.E.; Andreassen, K.; Skancke, L.B.; Clarke, N.; Saksgård, R.; Manø, S.; Solberg, S.; Jensen, T.C.; Økland, T.; Høgåsen, T.; Hesthagen, T.; Timmermann, V.; Aas, W.

Calculation of dispersion and deposition, April 2008 - April 2009. NILU OR

Gjerstad, K.I.; Liu, L.

HENVINET. Review of decision support tools, recommendations. NILU OR

Negrente, E.; Liu, H.-Y.; Neofytou, P.; Bartonova, A.

HENVINET. Report on raising public participation and awareness and report from final project meeting. NILU OR

Hazel, P. van den, Liu, H.-Y.; Bartonova, A.; Grossberndt, S. (eds.) .

The aim of this report is to describe the ways to raise public participation and awareness of environmental health issues. It includes: (1) science-policy communications and stakeholder engagement; (2) network portal; (3) knowledge evaluation on hot topics within environmental health fields; and (4) decision support tools for practitioners. In addition, this report summarizes the main outcome from the HENVINET final conference. It includes: (1) complexity in environment and health; (2) tools for practice; (3) communication strategies; and (4) exchange of knowledge and results with related projects and research initiatives.

Expert review of project description: Experimental studies investigating the risks of select amines (Part A: Human toxicity). NILU OR

Costa, D.; Haugen, A.; Kopangen, M.; Randall, S.

A review committee was established to examine the Phase II ExSIRA Part A project proposal. The committee consisted of 3 experts in the field. Each expert carefully reviewed background material (including Phase I reports) and the Part A project description; based on this work, each expert wrote an individual review. These individual reviews were used to create a consensus review for the committee in which this report is based upon.
The consensus review states that the project description as proposed is feasible and that the project team is competent to perform these investigations. However, one major comment from the committee is the consistent lack of detail regarding the study design and specific methods to be utilized. The committee recommends that this detail be documented at some point before experiments are conducted. The committee also identified a total of 11 specific comments and recommendations throughout the 4 tasks for the project ¿ many of these comments should be addressed before the project is funded.