How to Document Weights on Dangerous Goods/HazMat Transport Paperwork

International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Maritime Organization (IMO), Tile 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), & Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Documentation

No one wants to talk about their weight. Ever. In the world of transport though, you have no choice. You are required to list on your transport paperwork some sort of weight, mass, or volume. The trick is to know which regulation requires what. Should be the net weight or gross weight? Is it per package or per packaging? Sadly, depending on the regulation, the answers to those questions may differ.

Before getting started, be sure you understand what all of those terms mean. I tend to default to the IATA regulations when it comes to definitions. These are found in Appendix A. Take note that these terms are also defined in the other regulations, too. In 49 CFR check in §171.9. For IMDG they are in 2 places – Volume 1, Chapter 1.2 and Volume 2, Appendix B. TDG defines them Part 1.4.

Definitions:

Package

The complete product of the packing operation consisting of the packaging and the contents prepared for transport.

Packaging

A receptacle and any other components or materials necessary for the receptacle to perform its containment function in conformance with the minimum packing requirements.

Means of containment

The road or railway vehicle, aircraft, vessel, pipeline or any other contrivance that is or may be used to transport persons or goods.

Net quantity (or weight)

The weight or volume of the dangerous goods contained in a package excluding the weight or volume of any packaging material; or the weight of an unpackaged article of dangerous goods (e.g. UN3166).

Gross weight (or gross mass)

The weight of a packaging plus the weight of its contents.

Now that we know or remember those specific terms, let’s see what each regulation has to say in regards to the paperwork. These are known as shipper’s declarations, dangerous goods form, shipping papers, or a transport document.

IATA – Section 8 Documentation:

For this regulation, a shipper needs to review §8.1.6.9.2. In particular, Step 6 paragraph (a) provides the information we need for our shipper’s declaration.  You are required to list the net quantity of dangerous goods in each package (by volume or weight as appropriate) for each item of dangerous goods that has a different UN/ID number, shipping name or packing group along with the appropriate units of measure.  Since this is an international regulation, those units must be in metric.

IATA does one step further. Certain entries of the Dangerous Goods List in the column for the maximum net quantity per package there will be the inclusion of the “G”. For example, look at ID8000 for Consumer Commodity or certain limited quantity listings. This “G” indicates the shipper must give the gross weight of each package. To avoid confusion for the carriers this “G” must also be included after the unit of measure.

IMDG – Chapter 5.4

Under IMDG, the weight description needed is in §5.4.1.5.1.  Here it says, the total quantity of dangerous goods covered by the description (by volume or mass as appropriate) for each item bearing a different proper shipping name, UN number or packing group shall be included. At the end of that section is the notation to specific the unit of measure and that abbreviations for those may be used.   Again, this is an international regulation, so the units must be metric.

Take note, the use of the word “shall” is a mandatory requirement.

49 CFR – §172.200 Subpart C for Shipping Papers:

In 49 CFR, or as most of us call it DOT, a shipper needs to read §172.202 paragraph (a) subparagraph (5) closely. Here you see the total quantity of the hazardous materials must be indicated (by mass or volume) and it must include an indication of the applicable unit of measure on a shipping paper. Interestingly enough, §171.10 says the unit of measure is to be compatible with international standards which is metric.

49 CFR lists the “customary” units in parentheses throughout but they are not the regulatory standard. We all know the US has yet to convert fully to the metric system. However, it is a good idea to make the changeover now when it comes to our hazardous materials’ shipping papers.

TDG – Part 3 Documentation:

Here a consignor (shipper) is in a unique situation.  Section 3.5 (1)(d) simply tells a consignor that for each shipping name, the quantity of dangerous goods and the unit of measure used to express the quantity must be on a shipping document.  It does go on to say the units used must be metric.  There is not a differentiation between net and gross mass for Canadian transport.

Keeping all of these requirements straight as a shipper making shipments via ground, air, ocean and between the US and Canada can be difficult. Notice I’ve included nothing about how explosives should be listed. They have their own set of rules in each regulation. Hopefully, this blog will clarify one part of your role as a shipper. If you ever have questions or find your self in need of training, reach to us today.

 

The article was first published on the Compliance Center website.

About the Author

Paula Reavis has the following degrees: BS in Science Education, BA in Chemistry, MA in School Counseling Certification.  She is also a National Certified Counselor.  Ms. Reavis has a teaching background and several years of experience in Hazard Communications. She is knowledgeable in HazCom2012, WHMIS (old/new), 49 CFR, IATA, IMDG and TDG. She started with the the Compliance Center in 2014, and is currently the Trainer. She is active in several associations including NACD, IHMM and SCHC where she served as chair of the Membership and Awards Committee. She is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. EPA’s Enforcement of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

By Dianne R Phillips, Holland & Knight

On March 28, 2018, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Project Notification indicating its plans to begin preliminary research to evaluate the EPA’s implementation and enforcement of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule). The RRP Rule, which is part of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, is intended to ensure that owners and occupants of pre-1978 “target housing” and “child-occupied facilities” receive information on lead-based paint hazards before renovations begin, that individuals performing such renovations are properly trained and certified, and that renovators and workers follow specific lead-safe work practices during renovations to reduce the potential for exposure to lead. Although use of lead-based paint in dwellings was prohibited after 1978, EPA estimates it is still present in approximately 30 million homes across the United States. The RRP Rule is intended to protect children and others vulnerable to lead exposure due to the health effects associated with lead poisoning.

Enforcement of the RRP Rule, along with the other lead-based paint rules, has been a priority of EPA. For fiscal year ending 2017, according to EPA’s Oct. 27, 2017 press release from October 2016 through September 2017, EPA finalized 121 civil settlements for alleged violations of one or more of the three lead-based paint rules–the RRP Rule; the Lead Disclosure Rule; and the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule for abatements–and filed three complaints for ongoing actions. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice also prosecuted one criminal case involving violations of lead paint laws and finalized two Clean Air Act settlements that included lead paint abatement projects in local communities. The OIG Project Notification indicates that the “objective for this project is to determine whether EPA has an effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-based paint RRP.” Only time will tell what is meant by that.

____________________________

About the Author

Dianne R. Phillips is an attorney in Holland & Knight’s Boston office who concentrates her practice in litigation, regulatory, energy and environmental law. As former assistant general counsel for Suez LNG North America LLC (now known as Engie North America) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC, Ms. Phillips was involved in all aspects of regulatory compliance for the nation’s oldest, continuously operating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal located in Everett, Mass., including safety and security. Her LNG experience includes advising clients with respect to specialized regulatory compliance under 49 C.F.R. Part 193 and NFPA 59A.

IATA rolls out DG AutoCheck to enhance safety in dangerous goods transport

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently launched Dangerous Goods AutoCheck (DG AutoCheck), a new innovative solution for the air cargo industry, which will enhance safety and improve efficiency in the transport of dangerous goods by air, and support the industry’s goal of a fully digitised supply chain.

“The air transport industry handles over 1.25 million dangerous goods shipments transported every year. With the air cargo growth forecasted at 4.9 percent every year over the next five years, the number is expected to rise significantly. To ensure that the air cargo industry is ready to benefit from this growth, it needs to adopt modern and harmonised standards that will facilitate safe, secure and efficient operations, particularly in relations to carriage of dangerous goods. DG AutoCheck is a significant step towards achieving this goal,” said Nick Careen, senior vice president, airport, passenger, cargo and security, IATA.

FACILITATING ACCEPTANCE CHECKS

DG AutoCheck is a digital solution that allows the air cargo supply chain to check the compliance of the Shipper’s Declaration for Dangerous Goods (DGD) against all relevant rules and regulations contained in the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations.

The tool enables electronic consignment data to be received directly, which supports the digitisation of the cargo supply chain. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology also transforms a paper DGD into electronic data. This data is then processed and verified automatically using the XML data version of the DGR.

DG AutoCheck also facilitates a ground handlers or airline’s decision to accept or reject a shipment during the physical inspection stage, by providing a pictorial representation of the package, with the marking and labelling required for air transport.

“The DGR lists over 3,000 entries for dangerous goods. Each one must comply with the DGR when shipped. The paper DGR consists of 1,100 pages. Manually checking each shipper’s declaration is a complex and time consuming task. Automation with DG AutoCheck offers us a giant step forward. The cargo supply chain will benefit from greater efficiency, streamlined processes and enhanced safety,” said David Brennan, assistant director, cargo safety and standards, IATA.

INDUSTRY COLLABORATION

Collaboration is critical in driving industry transformation, especially for a business with such a complex supply chain. DG AutoCheck is a good example of effective industry partnerships.

An industry working group made up of more than twenty global organisations supported the development of DG AutoCheck. The group comprises airlines, freight forwarders, ground handlers and express integrators, including Air France-KLM CargoSwissportPanalpina and DHL Express.

“The air cargo supply chain is currently undergoing a major digital evolution. Collaboration across the industry is essential if the goal of a digitised electronic end-to-end messaging platform is to be realised. There is no time to lose as there is a growing demand from our customers for efficiency of electronic documentation throughout the supply chain,” said Nick Careen, senior vice president, airport, passenger, cargo and security, IATA.

 

Recycling end-of-life materials may be perpetuating toxic chemicals in new products

A researcher from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and paralegal, Fe de Leon, recently co-published a paper with HEJSupport International Co-Director Olga Speranskaya to bring public attention to toxic chemicals that appear in new products made out of recycled materials.  The authors of the paper argue that many countries have made investments into achieving progress towards a circular economy, but little or no attention is paid on toxic chemicals that appear in new products made out of recycled materials. The paper cites a growing body of evidence of how a circular economy fails to address concerns regarding toxic chemicals in products.

Fe de Leon, Researcher and Paralegal, CELA

In the paper, the authors cite a 2017 study prepared by IPEN, an environmental activist organization that focuses on synthetic chemicals, which revealed elevated concentrations of globally targeted toxic flame retardants in plastic toys.  The IPEN study claimed to have found elevated concentrations of toxic persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in samples of plastic toys purchased in different stores in Canada and other 25 countries globally.  The study further stated that the levels of some chemicals were more than five times higher than recommended international limits.  These chemicals include PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) such as octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE), decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE); and SCCPs (short chain chlorinated paraffins).  They are listed under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and are internationally banned or restricted due to their hazardous characteristics.  They all are persistent, highly toxic, travel long distances and build up in the food chain.  However, their presence in new products, although they are banned or restricted, opens up the discussion of a problem regarding recycling as a key component of a circular economy.

The paper concludes that product recycling and a focus on a circular economy should be encouraged.  However, material flows should be free from hazardous chemicals, at the minimum those chemicals which have already been regulated under the international treaties.

Olga Speranskaya, HEJSupport International Co-Director, IPEN CoChair

U.S. System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders Program

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program to assist emergency responders making procurement decisions. Located within the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), the SAVER Program conducts objective assessments and validations on commercial equipment and systems, and provides those results along with other relevant equipment information to the emergency responder community. For more information, read the SAVER Program Fact Sheet.

The SAVER Program mission includes:

  • Conducting impartial, practitioner‑relevant, operationally oriented assessments and validations of emergency response equipment; and,
  • Providing information, in the form of knowledge products, that enables decision‑makers and responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain emergency response equipment.

Addressing Technologies

SAVER contains more than 1,000 assessments of equipment that falls within 21 different categories on the DHS Authorized Equipment List (AEL). Categories include:

  • Search and Rescue
  • Information Technology
  • CBRNE Detection
  • Personal Protective Equipment
  • Decontamination
  • Surveillance
  • Explosive Countermeasures

This information is shared nationally with the responder community, providing a cost-saving resource to DHS and other federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally, more than 20 different programs offer grants to purchase equipment on the AEL List.

Objective Assessments and Validations

SAVER is supported by a network of qualified technical agents who play a critical role in providing impartial evaluations and by helping to ensure these evaluations address real-world operational requirements. Participating organizations include the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, DHS S&T’s National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, as well as emergency response practitioners, law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency managers, all of whom help to ensure these activities address real-world operational requirements.

Based on their assessments, technical agents produce documents, including product lists, reports, plans, rating charts, handbooks, and guides that describe the equipment, their capabilities, features, and potential applications. This provides first responders with a well-rounded picture to help inform procurement decisions.

SAVER Documents and Outreach

Partnerships

Biodetection Resources for First Responders

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Lesson Learned Information Sharing – Knowledge Base

Inter Agency Board – Standardized Equipment List

JUSTNet: The Website of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center

US officials consider robots to prevent mine spills

As reported by the Associated Press, Crumbling mine tunnels awash with polluted waters perforate the Colorado mountains and scientists may one day send robots creeping through the pitch-black passages to study the mysterious currents that sometimes burst to the surface with devastating effects.

One such disaster happened at the inactive Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado in 2015, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) accidentally triggered the release of 3 million gallons of mustard-colored water laden with arsenic, lead and other toxins. The spill tainted rivers in three states.

a man in a hard hat sprinkling lime (white power) into a pool of muddy water next to a culvert. Here, lime is added to a settling pond to assist in the pH adjustment of the water (Credit: Eric Vance/U.S. EPA)

Now the U.S. EPA is considering using robots and other sophisticated technology to help prevent these types of “blowouts” or clean them up if they happen. But first, the agency has to find out what’s inside the mines, some of which date to Colorado’s gold rush in the 1860s.

Wastewater laden with toxic heavy metals has been spewing from hundreds of inactive mines nationwide for decades, the product of complicated and sometimes poorly understood subterranean flows.

Mining creates tainted water in steps: Blasting out tunnels and processing ore exposes long-buried, sulfur-bearing rocks to oxygen. The sulfur and oxygen mix with natural underground water flows to create sulfuric acid. The acidic water then leaches heavy metals out of the rocks.

To manage and treat the wastewater, the U.S. EPA needs a clear idea of what’s inside the mines, some of which penetrate thousands of feet into the mountains. But many old mines are poorly documented.

Investigating with robots would be cheaper, faster and safer than humans.

“You can send a robot into an area that doesn’t have good air quality. You can send a robot into an area that doesn’t have much space,” said Rebecca Thomas, project manager for the U.S. EPA’s newly created Gold King Superfund site, officially known as the Bonita Peak Mining District.

Instruments on the robots could map the mines and analyze pollutants in the water.

They would look more like golf carts than the personable robots from “Star Wars” movies. Hao Zhang, an assistant professor of computer science at the Colorado School of Mines, envisions a battery-powered robot about 5 feet long with wheels or tracks to get through collapsing, rubble-strewn tunnels.

Zhang and a team of students demonstrated a smaller robot in a mine west of Denver recently. It purred smoothly along flat tunnel floors but toppled over trying to negotiate a cluttered passage.

“The terrain is pretty rough,” Zhang said. “It’s hard for even humans to navigate in that environment.”

A commercial robot modified to explore abandoned mines — including those swamped with acidic wastewater — could cost about $90,000 and take three to four years to develop, Zhang said.

Robot in underground mine (Photo Credit: Tatlana Flower/AP File)

Significant obstacles remain, including finding a way to operate remotely while deep inside a mine, beyond the reach of radio signals. One option is dropping signal-relay devices along the way so the robot stays in touch with operators. Another is designing an autonomous robot that could find its own way.

Researchers are also developing sophisticated computerized maps showing mines in three dimensions. The maps illustrate where the shafts intersect with natural faults and provide clues about how water courses through the mountains.

“It really helps us understand where we have certainty and where we have a lot of uncertainty about what we think is happening in the subsurface,” said Ian Bowen, a U.S. EPA hydrologist. “So it’s a wonderful, wonderful tool.”

The U.S. EPA also plans to drill into mines from the surface and lower instruments into the bore holes, measuring the depth, pressure and direction of underground water currents.

Tracing the currents is a challenge because they flow through multiple mines and surface debris. Many tunnels and faults are connected, so blocking one might send water out another.

“You put your finger in the dike here, where’s the water going to come out?” Thomas said.

Once the U.S. EPA finishes investigating, it will look at technologies for cleansing the wastewater.

Options range from traditional lime neutralization — which causes the heavy metals dissolved in the water to form particles and drop out — to more unusual techniques that involve introducing microbes.

The choice has consequences for taxpayers.  If no company is found financially responsible, the EPA pays the bill for about 10 years and then turns it over to the state.  Colorado currently pays about $1 million a year to operate a treatment plant at one Superfund mine. By 2028, it will pay about $5.7 million annually to operate plants at three mines, not including anything at the Bonita Peak site.

The U.S. EPA views the Colorado project as a chance for the government and entrepreneurs to take risks and try technology that might be useful elsewhere.

But the agency — already dealing with a distrustful public and critical politicians after triggering the Gold King spill — said any technology deployed in Colorado will be tested first and the public will have a chance to comment before decisions are made.

“We’re certainly not going to be in the position of making things worse,” Thomas said. “So when I say we want to take risks, we do, but we want to take calculated, educated risks and not worsen water quality.”

Evolution of Emergency Management

by Lee Spencer, Spencer Emergency Management Consulting

You would have to be living under a rock to have not heard the resounding thud of the Ontario Auditor General’s report on the state of emergency management in Canada’s most populated province hitting the desks of the emergency management community in Canada (report) . I for one was not shocked by the findings and believe most jurisdictions in Canada would see similar criticism if subject to an OAG review.

For generations, provincial level emergency management has been an after thought.  Historically staffed by second career fire/police/military retirees who were expected to be seen and not heard.  These legacy EMOs were counted on to create order in the otherwise chaotic response phase of large scale disaster and otherwise quickly to be ignored again once the situation was restored and recovery programs began to hand out government grants.

After 9/11 it was clear to elected officials that the public had an expectation of the EMO cavalry galloping in to defeat any hazard, risk or terrorist.  But the costs and the growth that would be needed to meet that expectation could not compete with the schools, hospitals, roads and bridges built to ensure tangible things could be pointed to when an election rolled around.  After all the last thing most governments want claim at election time is they added more civil servants.

So in this era of increased public expectation, EMOs were given very little new resources to modernize and adapt to the new reality.  Provincial EMOs were left to the task of preparedness and response in the modern context with resources more suited to the National Survival primordial ooze from which provincial EMOs emerged.

I am hopeful that the public shaming of our most densely populated economic engine, will lead to a national discussion of the investment required to truly meet the realities and expectations of modern emergency management.There are already several emerging national strategies that will aid in this effort, Canada’s emerging Broadband Public Safety Network and the expanding National Public Alerting Systems are modern capabilities that will go a long way to enhance capacity at even the most modest EMO.

We are also starting to see an expansion in post secondary degrees and diplomas which will lead to firmly establishing emergency management as a profession in Canada.  These emerging professionals will eventually take over the leadership roles from folks like me (second career), bringing with them the education and experience to combine the historical EMOs with modern thinking.

I know my former colleagues in the EMO’s across Canada are shifting uncomfortably at there desks at the moment waiting for their own leaders to ask how they compare to Ontario.  It would seem to me that if your not uncomfortable you just don’t get it.

_____________

About the Author

 Lee Spencer is founder and President of Spencer Emergency Management Consulting.  The company is focused on the strategic integration of emergency management concepts towards an outcome of resilience within a community, business or government.

 

This article was first published Spencer Emergency Management Consulting e-blog site.

Canada-based GFL Acquires Accuworx Inc.

GFL Environmental Inc. (“GFL”) recently announced the closing of the acquisition of the Canadian operations of Accuworx Inc. including Sure Horizon Environmental Inc., based in Brampton, Ontario.  Since its founding in 1989 by Jason Rosset, Accuworx has grown to be a leading provider of “cradle to cradle” environmental solutions for a broad base of liquid waste customers throughout Ontario.  Accuworx’s services include industrial cleaning, emergency response, soil and groundwater remediation and liquid waste management which will complement and extend the service offerings of GFL’s existing liquid waste business in Ontario.  Jason Rosset will remain with GFL working to further develop the customer base of our combined operations.

Patrick Dovigi, GFL’s Founder and CEO said: “Started by its founder, Jason Rosset, the key to Accuworx’s success has been its core entrepreneurial values: creating solutions that allow it to be a single source provider for all of its customers’ service needs.  This aligns with GFL’s core values and strategy. Accuworx and Sure Horizon also have a committed, passionate employee base that bring the same level of commitment to service excellence for our customers as GFL’s employees.  We are confident that this common commitment will make the integration of our service offerings seamless and allow us to continue to grow and serve our customers.  We are excited to have Jason Rosset and employees of Accuworx in Canada join the GFL team.”

Jason Rosset, Founder of Accuworx said: “Accuworx has traveled a long way as an independent, trail-blazing company, and I am confident that this strategic fit with GFL represents an ideal opportunity for Accuworx and our employees to accelerate to the next chapter of growth while maintaining the entrepreneurial culture in which we have thrived.”

GFL, headquartered in Toronto, ON, is a diversified environmental services company providing  solid waste, infrastructure & soil remediation, and liquid waste management services through its platform of facilities across Canada and in Southeastern Michigan.  GFL has a workforce of more than 5,000 employees.

FirstOnSite Restoration opens new Quebec branch

FirstOnSite Restoration, Canada’s leading independent disaster restoration services provider, has bolstered its Quebec offering with the opening of a new branch in Ste-Agathe, QC.  The branch will serve the restoration, remediation and reconstruction needs of both existing and new customers in the Laurentians region (including Mont Tremblant, Ste-Agathe and Saint-Sauveur) and complement service provided by the current branches in Montréal and Québec City.

This new branch is led by Senior Project Manager and Acting Branch Manager, Olivier Bertrand. Olivier, who resides in the Laurentians, originally joined FirstOnSite in 2010, and has had a successful history of entrepreneurship, business management and restoration industry expertise. He has more than 10-years experience in disaster recovery and restoration, and has worked on multimillion-dollar commercial restoration and reconstruction projects as well as condominiums and residential rebuilds. Olivier has also owned and operated his own construction firm, where he specialized in new build construction.

“Olivier’s experience in leadership, management and restoration uniquely qualifies him to launch and manage this new FirstOnSite location,” said Barry J. Ross, Executive Vice President, FirstOnSite Restoration.

Supporting Olivier is Project Manager, Eric Archambault, a 30-year veteran of the restoration industry, and an expert in loss evaluation and restoration of major residential and commercial properties. Eric is also a resident of the Laurentians.

The new branch will be reinforced by FirstOnSite’s flagship Montréal/Dorval branch – the largest full service commercial and residential restoration provider in the province, and is the next step of the company’s expansion plans in Quebec.

“The Ste-Agathe branch brings a dedicated and full-time staff to the region and reinforces our commitment to providing superior customer service,” said Ross. “It will help FirstOnSite extend the coverage we offer customers through our existing locations.”

About FirstOnSite Restoration

FirstOnSite Restoration Limited is an independent Canadian disaster restoration services provider, providing remediation, restoration and reconstruction services nationwide, and for the U.S. large loss and commercial market. With approximately 1,000 employees, more than 35 locations, 24/7 emergency service and a commitment to customer service, FirstOnSite  serves the residential, commercial and industrial sectors.

In May 2016, FirstOnSite joined forces with U.S.-based Interstate Restoration, expanding its resource base, and extending its customer service offering and collectively becoming the second largest restoration service provider in North America.

Market Study on U.S. Volatile Organic Compound Detector Market

Questale, a firm specializing in market research, recently published an industry research that focuses on United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market and delivers in-depth market analysis and future prospects of United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market.  The study covers significant data which makes the research document a handy resource for managers, analysts, industry experts and other key people get ready-to-access and self-analyzed study along with graphs and tables to help understand market trends, drivers and United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market challenges. The study is segmented by Application/ end users Environmental site surveying, Industrial Hygiene, HazMat/Homeland Security , products type PID, Metal-oxide Semiconductor, On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, including and various important geographies.

Remote Environmental Monitoring Research

The research covers the current market size of the United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market and its growth rates based on 5 year history data along with company profile of key players/manufacturers. The in-depth information by segments of United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market helps monitor future profitability & to make critical decisions for growth. The information on trends and developments, focuses on markets and materials, capacities, technologies, CAPEX cycle and the changing structure of the United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor Market.

The study provides company profiling, product picture and specifications, sales, market share and contact information of key manufacturers of United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor Market, some of them listed here are REA Systems , Ion Science , Thermo Fisher . The United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market is growing at a very rapid pace and with rise in technological innovation, competition and M&A activities in the industry many local and regional vendors are offering specific application products for varied end-users. The new manufacturer entrants in the United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market are finding it hard to compete with the international vendors based on quality, reliability, and innovations in technology.

United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor (Thousands Units) and Revenue (Million USD) Market Split by Product Type such as PID, Metal-oxide Semiconductor, On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, including . Further the research study is segmented by Application such as Environmental site surveying, Industrial Hygiene, HazMat/Homeland Security with historical and projected market share and compounded annual growth rate.

 

Geographically, this United States Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Monitor market research report is segmented into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue (million USD), and market share and growth rate of Joint Mixture in these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), covering ,, etc and its Share (%) and CAGR for the forecasted period 2017 to 2022.

Read Detailed Index of full Research Study at @ https://questale.com/report/united-states-volatile-organic-compound-voc-monitor-market-report-2018/178527.