ArticleHeliyon2025
Life cycle assessment of electronic, electric and nonelectric detonators; a site-specific case for Czech Republic.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Liquid Alkaline Water Electrolyzers: Comparing Performance across Design, Operation, and End-of-Life Scenarios.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread use of detonators across industries such as construction and mining introduces significant environmental risks throughout their life cycle, creating a need to understand and mitigate their environmental impacts. The current study addresses this issue by evaluating the environmental footprint of three commonly used types of detonators-electronic, electric, and non-electric-through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The main objective is to identify which detonator type poses the greatest environmental burden and to propose actionable strategies for impact reduction. As functional unit is chosen one piece of detonator with system boundaries set to cradle to grave. Using primary data, we constructed a comprehensive Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and performed a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), focusing on key impact categories. Results indicate that the electronic detonator, which excels in e.g. high variability detonation timing without losing the timing precision, exhibits the highest environmental impacts, especially concerning Freshwater Ecotoxicity, Global Warming Potential and Abiotic Fossil Depletion (e.g. 1,73E-05, 1,20E-05 and 2,12E-06 (normalized and weighted), respectively, for modules A1-A3). For the detonation itself (module A5), the non-electric detonator exhibits relatively high results for Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (7,45E-06 kg NMVOC eq.), while the electric detonator shows highest burdens for Ecotoxicity Freshwater (5,39E-03 CTUe). Based on these findings, we recommend specific measures, such as adopting materials with recycled content, light-weight materials, bio-based and -degradable materials or alternative fuels, to support more sustainable detonator production and usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.