Pine Chip and Poultry Litter Derived Biochars Affect C and N Dynamics in Two Georgia, USA, Ultisols

Some biochars produced by pyrolysis of biomass have the potential to sequester C and enhance nutrient supplies in agricultural soils. A 28-day lab incubation was used to assess the potential effects of biochars derived from pine chips (PC) or poultry litter (PL) applied at five application rates (0, 22.5, 45.0, 67.5, and 90 Mg ha−1 equivalent). Biochars were applied to two acidic Ultisols, a Cecil sandy loam and a Tifton loamy sand, found in Georgia, USA. Cumulative basal soil respiration was measured over the 28-day incubation. Other soil properties measured before and after incubation were soil pH, total soil organic carbon (SOC), total soil N, soluble organic C (OC), soil mineral nitrogen (NH4+-N and NO3−-N), and microbial biomass C (MBC). Before incubation, addition of both PC and PL biochars increased soil pH, total SOC, and C:N ratio in both soils. Addition of the PL biochar increased total soil N, soluble OC, and NO3−-N in both soils, MBC in Tifton soil, and NH4+-N in Cecil soil. Addition of the PC biochar decreased NO3−-N in Cecil soil but increased it in Tifton soil. After the 28-day incubation, averaged across soils, pH increased in the 22.5 Mg ha−1 PC and 22.5 and 67.5 Mg ha−1 PL treatments, total SOC declined in the 45 and 67.5 Mg ha−1 PC treatments, and the C:N increased in soil controls and decreased in the 67.5 Mg ha−1 PC treatment. In Cecil soil, the MBC declined in PL treatments except at 90 Mg ha−1, and NH4+-N declined in the 90 Mg ha−1 PC treatments. In Tifton soil, MBC increased in the 45 Mg ha−1 PL treatment, and NH4+-N increased in all but the 22.5 Mg ha−1 PL treatments. Total N and NO3−-N did not change with incubation. Basal respiration was not affected by biochar, thought it was generally greater in Cecil than Tifton soil. Net SOC loss and the initial increase in soluble OC and MBC indicated potential C priming from adding both biochars. Increased NH4+-N with time in Tifton PL treatments indicated potential N priming. In Cecil soil, the PC biochar may have immobilized NH4+-N, but PL biochar likely supplied it. In Tifton soil, PC biochar appeared to be generally inert, but PL biochar supplied soluble OC and NH4+-N, although it might have inhibited nitrification

Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent vulval and vaginal cancer and their precursors

Introduction: Safety and efficacy of prophylactic HPV vaccines against HPV infection and associated cervical cancers and precursors is well documented in the literature; however, their efficacy against vulval and vaginal endpoints has not been previously assessed. Areas covered: Published results of trials involving licensed HPV vaccines were included. Main efficacy outcomes were histologically confirmed high-grade vulval and vaginal precancer distinguishing those associated with vaccine HPV types and any vulval and vaginal precancerous lesions. Exposure groups included women aged 15-26 or 24-45 years being initially negative for high-risk HPV (hrHPV), negative for the HPV vaccine types, and women unselected by HPV status. Expert opinion: Our results show that the HPV vaccines are equally highly efficacious against vulval/vaginal disease as previously noted for cervical disease. The vaccines demonstrated excellent protection against high-grade vulval and vaginal lesions caused by vaccine-related HPV types among young women who were not initially infected with hrHPV types or types included in the vaccines (vaccine efficacies more than 90%). No protection against high-grade vulval and vaginal lesions associated with HPV16/18 was observed for mid-adult women. Trials were not powered to address protection against invasive cancers

When and why was the phrenicoabdominal branch of the left phrenic nerve placed into the esophageal hiatus in German textbooks of C anatomy? An anatomical study on 400 specimens reevaluating its course through the diaphragm

Background: The phrenicoabdominal branch of the left phrenic nerve passes between muscle fiber bundles within the costal part of the diaphragm near the pericardium. In most German textbooks of anatomy, however, its passage is described to be found in the esophageal hiatus. The aim of this study was to reevaluate its topography relative to the diaphragm in a multicentric study and to identify the initiation of this description. Methods: In this multicentric study, the most dorsomedial branch of the left phrenic nerve was identified as the phrenicoabdominal branch in 400 embalmed anatomic specimens of Caucasian origin. The distance between its passage and the apex of the pericardium, the left border of the esophageal hiatus, and the inner aspect of the left sixth rib was measured on the cranial aspect of the diaphragm. Textbooks on human anatomy published in German language between 1700 and 2018 were reviewed for their description of the passage of the left phrenicoabdominal branch through the diaphragm. Results: The first statement on the passage of the left phrenicoabdominal branch through the esophageal hiatus was given in 1791 by Sommering. Since then, in German textbooks of anatomy, a duality in the description of the passage of the left phrenicoabdominal branch persists. In none of the individuals examined in this study, the left phrenicoabdominal branch passed through the esophageal hiatus. In 99.5% of all cases, it pierced the costal part of the diaphragm dorsal to or at the same level as the apex of the pericardium. The mean distances (standard deviations) were 3.4 (+/- 1.5) cm to the apex of the pericardium, 5.8 (+/- 2.2) cm to the esophageal hiatus, and 5.5 (+/- 1.6) cm to the inner aspect of the left sixth rib. Conclusion: The findings on the position of the left phrenicoabdominal branch relative to the diaphragm help to improve topographical knowledge and prevent inadvertent nerve injury during surgical interventions on or near the diaphragm. Further to this, these results may form a substantial basis to adopt the correct description of the passage of the left phrenicoabdominal branch to anatomical textbook knowledge. (C) 2019 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved