Characterisation of Conventional 87Sr/86Sr Isotope Ratios in Cement, Limestone and Slate Reference Materials Based on an Interlaboratory Comparison Study

An interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was organised to characterise 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in geological and industrial reference materials by applying the so-called conventional method for determining 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios. Four cements (VDZ 100a, VDZ 200a, VDZ 300a, IAG OPC-1), one limestone (IAG CGL ML-3) and one slate (IAG OU-6) reference materials were selected, covering a wide range of naturally occurring Sr isotopic signatures. Thirteen laboratories received aliquots of these six reference materials together with a detailed technical protocol. The consensus values for the six reference materials and their associated measurement uncertainties were obtained by applying a Gaussian, linear mixed effects model fitted to all the measurement results. By combining the consensus values and their uncertainties with an uncertainty contribution for potential heterogeneity, reference values ranging from 0.708134 mol mol-1 to 0.729778 mol mol-1 were obtained with relative expanded uncertainties of ≤ 0.007 %. This study represents an ILC on conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios, within which metrological principles were considered and the compatibility of measurement results obtained by MC-ICP-MS and by MC-TIMS is demonstrated. The materials characterised in this study can be used as reference materials for validation and quality control purposes and to estimate measurement uncertainties in conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio measurement

Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021 (IUPAC Technical Report)

Following the reviews of atomic-weight determinations and other cognate data in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) reports changes of standard atomic weights. The symbol A r°(E) was selected for standard atomic weight of an element to distinguish it from the atomic weight of an element E in a specific substance P, designated A r(E, P). The CIAAW has changed the values of the standard atomic weights of five elements based on recent determinations of terrestrial isotopic abundances: Ar (argon): from 39.948 ± 0.001 to [39.792, 39.963] Hf (hafnium): from 178.49 ± 0.02 to 178.486 ± 0.006 Ir (iridium): from 192.217 ± 0.003 to 192.217 ± 0.002 Pb (lead): from 207.2 ± 0.1 to [206.14, 207.94] Yb (ytterbium): from 173.054 ± 0.005 to 173.045 ± 0.010 The standard atomic weight of argon and lead have changed to an interval to reflect that the natural variation in isotopic composition exceeds the measurement uncertainty of A r(Ar) and A r(Pb) in a specific substance. The standard atomic weights and/or the uncertainties of fourteen elements have been changed based on the Atomic Mass Evaluations 2016 and 2020 accomplished under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). A r° of Ho, Tb, Tm and Y were changed in 2017 and again updated in 2021: Al (aluminium), 2017: from 26.981 5385 ± 0.000 0007 to 26.981 5384 ± 0.000 0003 Au (gold), 2017: from 196.966 569 ± 0.000 005 to 196.966 570 ± 0.000 004 Co (cobalt), 2017: from 58.933 194 ± 0.000 004 to 58.933 194 ± 0.000 003 F (fluorine), 2021: from 18.998 403 163 ± 0.000 000 006 to 18.998 403 162 ± 0.000 000 005 (Ho (holmium), 2017: from 164.930 33 ± 0.000 02 to 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007) Ho (holmium), 2021: from 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007 to 164.930 329 ± 0.000 005 Mn (manganese), 2017: from 54.938 044 ± 0.000 003 to 54.938 043 ± 0.000 002 Nb (niobium), 2017: from 92.906 37 ± 0.000 02 to 92.906 37 ± 0.000 01 Pa (protactinium), 2017: from 231.035 88 ± 0.000 02 to 231.035 88 ± 0.000 01 Pr (praseodymium), 2017: from 140.907 66 ± 0.000 02 to 140.907 66 ± 0.000 01 Rh (rhodium), 2017: from 102.905 50 ± 0.000 02 to 102.905 49 ± 0.000 02 Sc (scandium), 2021: from 44.955 908 ± 0.000 005 to 44.955 907 ± 0.000 004 (Tb (terbium), 2017: from 158.925 35 ± 0.000 02 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008) Tb (terbium), 2021: from 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 007 (Tm (thulium), 2017: from 168.934 22 ± 0.000 02 to 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006) Tm (thulium), 2021: from 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006 to 168.934 219 ± 0.000 005 (Y (yttrium), 2017: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 02 to 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01) Y (yttrium), 2021: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01 to 88.905 838 ± 0.00

CCQM-K90, formaldehyde in nitrogen, 2 μmol mol− 1 Final report

The CCQM-K90 comparison is designed to evaluate the level of comparability of national metrology institutes (NMI) or designated institutes (DI) measurement capabilities for formaldehyde in nitrogen at a nominal mole fraction of 2 μmol mol−1. The comparison was organised by the BIPM using a suite of gas mixtures prepared by a producer of specialty calibration gases. The BIPM assigned the formaldehyde mole fraction in the mixtures by comparison with primary mixtures generated dynamically by permeation coupled with continuous weighing in a magnetic suspension balance. The BIPM developed two dynamic sources of formaldehyde in nitrogen that provide two independent values of the formaldehyde mole fraction: the first one based on diffusion of trioxane followed by thermal conversion to formaldehyde, the second one based on permeation of formaldehyde from paraformaldehyde contained in a permeation tube. Two independent analytical methods, based on cavity ring down spectroscopy (CRDS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) were used for the assignment procedure. Each participating institute was provided with one transfer standard and value assigned the formaldehyde mole fraction in the standard based on its own measurement capabilities. The stability of the formaldehyde mole fraction in transfer standards was deduced from repeated measurements performed at the BIPM before and after measurements performed at participating institutes. In addition, 5 control standards were kept at the BIPM for regular measurements during the course of the comparison. Temporal trends that approximately describe the linear decrease of the amount-of-substance fraction of formaldehyde in nitrogen in the transfer standards over time were estimated by two different mathematical treatments, the outcomes of which were proposed to participants. The two treatments also differed in the way measurement uncertainties arising from measurements performed at the BIPM were propagated to the uncertainty of the trend parameters, as well as how the dispersion of the dates when measurements were made by the participants was taken into account. Upon decision of the participants, the Key Comparison Reference Values were assigned by the BIPM using the largest uncertainty for measurements performed at the BIPM, linear regression without weight to calculate the trend parameters, and not taking into account the dispersion of dates for measurements made by the participant. Each transfer standard was assigned its own reference value and associated expanded uncertainty. An expression for the degree of equivalence between each participating institute and the KCRV was calculated from the comparison results and measurement uncertainties submitted by participating laboratories. Results of the alternative mathematical treatment are presented in annex of this report

Minimum requirements for publishing hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur stable-isotope delta results (IUPAC Technical Report)

Stable hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (HCNOS) isotope compositions expressed as isotope-delta values are typically reported relative to international standards such as Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW), Vienna Peedee belemnite (VPDB) or Vienna Cañon Diablo Troilite (VCDT). These international standards are chosen by convention and the calibration methods used to realise them in practice undergo occasional changes. To ensure longevity and reusability of published data, a comprehensive description of (1) analytical procedure, (2) traceability, (3) data processing, and (4) uncertainty evaluation is required. Following earlier International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry documents on terminology and notations, this paper proposes minimum requirements for publishing HCNOS stable-isotope delta results. Each of the requirements are presented with illustrative example

Carotid intima-media thickness and flow-mediated dilation do not predict acute in-hospital outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Studies have suggested a potential role of endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Herein, we tested whether brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) measured upon hospital admission are associated with acute in-hospital outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. A total of 211 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were submitted to assessments of FMD and mean and maximum cIMT (cIMTmean and cIMTmax) within the first 72 h of hospital admission. Study primary outcome was a composite of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death during the hospitalization. These outcomes were also considered independently. Thrombotic events were included as a secondary outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Eighty-eight (42%) participants demonstrated at least one of the composite outcomes. cIMTmean and cIMTmax were predictors of mortality and thrombotic events in the univariate analysis (cIMTmean and mortality: unadjusted OR 12.71 [95% CI 1.71–94.48]; P = 0.014; cIMTmean and thrombotic events: unadjusted OR 11.94 [95% CI 1.64–86.79]; P = 0.015; cIMTmax and mortality: unadjusted OR 8.47 [95% CI 1.41–51.05]; P = 0.021; cIMTmax and thrombotic events: unadjusted OR 12.19 [95% CI 2.03–73.09]; P = 0.007). However, these associations were no longer present after adjustment for potential confounders (P > 0.05). In addition, FMD% was not associated with any outcome. In conclusion, cIMT and FMD are not independent predictors of clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. These results suggest that subclinical atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction may not be the main drivers of COVID-19 complications in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Pleiotropic effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin vs. high dose simvastatin

Background: In the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD), it is not known if the pleiotropic effects of cholesterol reduction differ between combined ezetimibe/simvastatin and high-dose simvastatin alone. Objective: We sought to compare the anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet effects of ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 20 mg (E10/S20) with simvastatin 80 mg (S80). Methods and results: CAD patients (n = 83, 63 +/- 9 years, 57% men) receiving S20, were randomly allocated to receive E10/S20 or S80, for 6 weeks. Lipids, inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, soluble CD40 ligand and oxidized LDL), and platelet aggregation (platelet function analyzer [PFA]-100) changes were determined. Baseline lipids, inflammatory markers and PFA-100 were similar between groups. After treatment, E10/S20 and S80 patients presented, respectively: (1) similar reduction in LDL-C (29 +/- 13% vs. 28 +/- 30%, p = 0.46), apo-B (18 +/- 17% vs. 22 +/- 15%, p = 0.22) and oxidized LDL (15 +/- 33% vs. 18 +/- 47%, p = 0.30); (2) no changes in inflammatory markers; and, (3) a higher increase of the PFA-100 with E10/S20 than with S80 (27 +/- 43% vs. 8 +/- 33%, p = 0.02). Conclusions: These data suggest that among stable CAD patients treated with S20, (1) both E10/S20 and S80 were equally effective in further reducing LDL-C; (2) neither treatment had any further significant anti-inflammatory effects; and (3) E10/S20 was more effective than S80 in inhibiting platelet aggregation. Thus, despite similar lipid lowering and doses 4x less of simvastatin, E10/S20 induced a greater platelet inhibitory effect than S80. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.Astra ZenecaAstraZenecaMerck/Schering PloughMerck/Schering PloughPfizerPfizerSao Paulo Research FoundationSao Paulo Research Foundation [FAPESP/05/57710-3