86 research outputs found

    Nitrifying bio-cord reactor: performance optimization and effects of substratum and air scouring

    No full text
    <p>Ammonia removal kinetics and solids’ production performance of the bio-cord technology are studied in this research. Three nitrifying reactors housing different bio-cord substratum were operated at five different ammonia loading rates. All of the bio-cord substrata demonstrated stable and high ammonia-nitrogen removal efficiencies of 96.8 ± 0.9%, 97.0 ± 0.6% and 92.0 ± 0.4% at loading rates of 0.8, 1.6 and 1.8 g -N/m<sup>2</sup> d, respectively. At these same loading rates, the bio-cord reactors housing the three substrata also showed low solids’ production rates of 0.19 ± 0.03, 0.23 ± 0.02, 0.25 ± 0.03 g total suspended solids/d. A reduction of system stability, identified via fluctuating ammonia removal rates, was however observed for all substrata at loading rates of 2.1 and 2.4 g -N/m<sup>2</sup> d. Further, the solids’ production rates at these higher loading conditions were also observed to fluctuate for all substrata, likely indicating intermediate sloughing events. The effects of enhancing the air scouring of the bio-cord on the ammonia removal rate was shown to be dependent upon the substratum, while enhanced air scouring of the bio-cord was shown to stabilize the production of solids for all substrata. This study represents the first performance and optimization study of the bio-cord technology for low-carbon nitrification and shows that air scouring of the substratum reduces sloughing events at elevated loading and that the bio-cord technology achieves stable kinetics above conventional rates of 1 g -N/m<sup>2</sup> d to values of 1.8 g -N/m<sup>2</sup> d.</p

    Dynamic variations of granger causality during working memory tasks.

    No full text
    <p>The data are divided into six 1(4 s pre and 2 s post the tripping time). The red triangle indicates the tripping time of the infrared sensor in the Y-maze. (A) Dynamic variations of the granger causality matrixes during a working memory task of rat 1. (B) Variations of the GC values in the original dimensionality during the working memory tasks of each rat (mean±SEM). (C) Variations of the GC<sub>PC</sub> values in the reduced dimensionality during the working memory tasks of each rat (mean±SEM). (D) Comparisons of granger causality (mean±SEM). The granger causality values of the original and the reduced dimensionality are both significantly higher at the working memory state (WMS) than at the beginning state (WMBS). Besides, the granger causality levels in the original dimensionality at the WMS and the WMBS are significantly lower than those in the reduced dimensionality (80 trials for 6 rat, paired sample t-test, <sup>*</sup> P<0.05, <sup>**</sup> P<0.01).</p

    Dynamic variations of global efficiency and causal density both in the original and in the reduced dimensionality during working memory tasks, 6 rats respectively.

    No full text
    <p>(A) The dynamic variations of global efficiency in the original dimensionality (dashed lines) and the reduced dimensionality (solid lines) during the WM tasks, 6 rats respectively (mean±SEM). (B) The dynamic variations of causal density in the original dimensionality (dashed lines) and the reduced dimensionality (solid lines) during WM tasks, 6 rats respectively (mean±SEM). The red triangle indicates the tripping time of the infrared sensor in the Y-maze. (C) Comparisons of global efficiency (mean±SEM). The values of the global efficiency in both the original and the reduced dimensionality are significantly higher at the WMS than at the WMBS. The E values in the original dimensionality at the WMS are significantly lower than the E<sub>PC</sub> values in the reduced dimensionality (80 trials for 6 rat, paired sample t-test, <sup>**</sup> P<0.01). No significant difference is found at the WMBS (80 trials for 6 rat, paired sample t-test, P>0.05). (D) Comparisons of causal density (mean±SEM). The values of the causal density in both the original and the reduced dimensionality are significantly higher at the WMS than at the WMBS. The CD values in the original dimensionality at the WMS are significantly lower than the CD<sub>PC</sub> values in the reduced dimensionality (80 trials for 6 rat, paired sample t-test, <sup>**</sup> P<0.01). No significant difference is found at the WMBS (80 trials for 6 rat, paired sample t-test, P>0.05).</p

    Comparisons of the global efficiency of original and reduced dimensionality at WMBS and WMS<sup>a</sup>.

    No full text
    a<p>The values are the mean ± SEM of the global efficiency values of each rats (paired sample <i>t</i> test).</p>b<p>Total number of the compared groups.</p><p>* p<0.05 compared to the global efficiency values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p><p>** p<0.01 compared to the global efficiency values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p>▵<p>p<0.05 compared to the global efficiency values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p>▵▵<p>p<0.01 compared to the global efficiency values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p

    Dynamic variations of granger causality, global efficiency and causal density during the incorrect tasks in both the original and the reduced dimensionality (20 trials for 6 rats).

    No full text
    <p>The data are divided into six 1(4 s pre and 2 s post the tripping time). The red triangle indicates the tripping time of the infrared sensor in the Y-maze. (A) Dynamic variations of the granger causality matrixes during an incorrect trial of rat 1. (B) The variations of granger causality (left), global efficiency (middle) and causal density (right) during the incorrect tasks (20 trials for 6 rats) and the correct trials (80 trials for 6 rats) in the original dimensionality. The feature values in the correct trials are significantly higher 2 s (GC, E, CD) and 1 s (E, CD) pre the tripping time than those in the incorrect trials (t test, <sup>*</sup> P<0.05, <sup>**</sup> P<0.01). No statistical difference is found at the WMBS between the incorrect and the correct trials (t test, P>0.05). (C) The variations of granger causality (left), global efficiency (middle) and causal density (right) during the incorrect tasks (20 trials for 6 rats) and the correct trials (80 trials for 6 rats) in the reduced dimensionality. The feature values in the correct trials are significantly higher 2 s (GC<sub>PC</sub>, E<sub>PC</sub>, CD<sub>PC</sub>) and 1 s (GC<sub>PC</sub>, E<sub>PC</sub>, CD<sub>PC</sub>) pre the tripping time than those in the incorrect trials (t test, <sup>**</sup> P<0.01). In addition, the feature values were significantly higher at the WMBS in the incorrect trials (t test, <sup>*</sup> P<0.05).</p

    Comparisons of the causal density of original and reduced dimensionality at WMBS and WMS<sup>a</sup>.

    No full text
    a<p>The values are the mean ± SEM of the causal density values of each rats (paired sample <i>t</i> test).</p>b<p>Total number of the compared groups.</p><p>* p<0.05 compared to the causal density values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p><p>** p<0.01 compared to the causal density values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p>▵<p>p<0.05 compared to the causal density values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p>▵▵<p>p<0.01 compared to the causal density values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p

    Comparisons of the granger causality of the original and the reduced dimensionality at WMBS and WMS<sup>a</sup>.

    No full text
    a<p>The values are the mean ± SEM of the average granger causality values of each rats (paired sample <i>t</i> test).</p>b<p>Total number of the compared groups.</p><p>* p<0.05 compared to the granger causality values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p><p>** p<0.01 compared to the granger causality values at the WMBS in the original dimensionality or the reduced dimensionality.</p>▵<p>p<0.05 compared to the granger causality values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p>▵▵<p>p<0.01 compared to the granger causality values of the original dimensionality at the WMBS or at the WMS.</p

    The efficacy and safety of brivaracetam at different doses for partial-onset epilepsy: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies

    No full text
    <p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> This meta-analysis systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of different doses of brivaracetam (BRV) compared with placebo as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset epilepsy.</p> <p><b><i>Methods:</i></b> Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of BRV published up to May 2015. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The outcomes of interest included 50% responder rates, seizure freedom, the incidence of withdrawal and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).</p> <p><b><i>Results:</i></b> Five trials met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, 20, 50, 100 and 150 mg/day BRV was associated with significantly higher 50% responder rates. In addition, the effect of 50 mg BRV on seizure freedom was significantly different than that of placebo. Both fatigue and nasopharyngitis were significantly associated with 20 mg BRV, whereas fatigue and irritability were associated with 50 mg BRV. Somnolence was associated with 150 mg BRV. No significant differences were observed for the other common TEAEs.</p> <p><b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The use of BRV at doses > 5 mg/day resulted in statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency in respect to the 50% responder rate. BRV was reasonably tolerated by patients. These findings warrant confirmation in future studies.</p

    Time-frequency spectra of LFPs while rat in a WM task.

    No full text
    <p>Spectral peaks of the gamma and theta rhythms stand out as isolated spots (arrows). The gamma rhythms slow down gradually from 55.0 Hz and 75.0 Hz while theta rhythms slow down gradually from 3.0 Hz and 10.0 Hz. The time interval of LFPs was 2 s before WM reference and 1 s after WM reference. Time is presented on the x-axis. Frequency is presented on the y-axis. The width of each spectral segment was 7 s, and the frequency ranges was 1–80 Hz. (A) denote time-frequency spectra of PRO group in the first day, the second day and the next day after propofol anesthesia. (B), (C) respectively denote time-frequency spectra of control group and pro group at the same time. The energy level is coded on a color scale: blue areas show low energy, and red areas show high energy. Control  =  no propofol anesthesia; pro = 0.5 mg•kg<sup>−1</sup>•min<sup>−1</sup>, 2 h; PRO = 0.9 mg•kg<sup>−1</sup>•min<sup>−1</sup>, 2 h. ▾▴ represents the tripping time by infrared in Y-maze.</p

    Rat working memory task training in Y-maze and one example of LFPs.

    No full text
    <p>(A) Y-maze for rat working memory task; (B) one example of ‘right’ task, the direction of ‘choice run’ is different to ‘sample run’; (C) one example of ‘wrong’task, the direction of ‘choice run’ is same to ‘sample run’; (D) one example of 16-channels LFPs and one channel LFPs before preprocessing; (E) one example of 16-channels LFPs and one channel LFPs after preprocessing. ▾▴ represents the tripping time by infrared in Y-maze.</p
    corecore