Waste-derived activated carbons for control of nitrogen oxides

Activated carbons were produced from waste and investigated for their efficiency for the removal of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) in simulated flue gases at a low temperature. The wastes used were waste biomass (date seeds), processed municipal solid waste in the form of refuse-derived fuel and waste tyres. The morphology, porous texture and surface chemistry of the prepared activated carbons were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry, nitrogen adsorption and Boehm titration, and were compared with several commercial activated carbons. The carbons were then investigated in terms of their use in adsorbing NOx at a low temperature. The waste-derived activated carbons had NOx adsorption efficiencies at 50°C which were between 50 and 70% of those achieved for the commercial activated carbons. Increasing the adsorption temperature from 25 to 100°C significantly reduced nitrogen oxide (NO) adsorption. It was also shown that the NO adsorption efficiency depends on the porous structure, particularly the presence of micropores in the activated carbon, but to a lesser extent on the surface area of the carbons and acid–base surface groups on the carbon surface

Lipopolysaccharide-induced memory impairment in rats: a model of Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a primary cause of dementia in the middle-aged and elderly worldwide. Animal models for AD are widely used to study the disease mechanisms as well as to test potential therapeutic agents for disease modification. Among the non-genetically manipulated neuroinflammation models for AD, lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced animal model is commonly used. This review paper aims to discuss the possible factors that influence rats’ response following LPS injection. Factors such as dose of LPS, route of administration, nature and duration of exposure as well as age and gender of animal used should be taken into account when designing a study using LPS-induced memory impairment as model for AD

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal, and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia, and Europe– argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal, and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions, and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action

Dosimetric effects of brass mesh bolus on skin dose and dose at depth for postmastectomy chest wall irradiation

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of using the brass mesh bolus as an alternative to tissue- equivalent bolus for post mastectomy chest wall cancer by characterizing the dosimetric effects of the 2-mm fine brass bolus on both the skin dose, the dose at depth and spatial distribution. Materials and methods: Surface dose and percent depth dose data were acquired for a 6 MV photon beam in a solid water phantom using MOSkin™ Gafchromic EBT3 film and an Advanced Markus ionization chamber. Data were acquired for the case of: no bolus, Face-up bass bolus, Face-down brass bolus, double brass bolus, 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm of Superflab TE bolus. The exit doses were also measured via MOSkin™ dosimeter and Markus ionization chamber. Gafchromic EBT3 film strips were used to plot dose profile at surface and 10 cm depth for Face-up brass, Face-down brass, double brass, 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm of Superflab TE bolus. Results: The surface dose measured via MOSkin™ dosimeter increased from 19.2 ± 1.0% to 63.1 ± 2.1% under Face-up brass discs, 51.2 ± 1.2% under Face-up brass spaces, 61.5 ± 0.5% under Face-down brass discs, and 41.3 ± 2.1% under Face-down brass spaces. The percentage difference in the dose measured under brass discs between Face-up versus Face-down was less than 2% for entrance dose and 10% for exit dose, whereas the percentage difference under brass spaces was approximately 3% for entrance dose and about 5% for the exit dose. Gafchromic EBT3 film strip measurements show that the mesh bolus produced ripple beam profiles due to the mesh brass construction. Conclusions: Brass bolus does not significantly change dose at depth (less than 0.5%), and the surface dose is increased similar to TE bolus. Considering this, brass mesh may be used as a substitute for TE bolus to increase superficial dose for chest wall tangent plans

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we –a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe –argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action