H2 production in Palladium-based Membrane Reactor

One possible use for hydrogen, without direct greenhouse gas emissions, is as feed for a fuel cell (FC), with the most readily available technology being a proton exchange membrane FC (PEMFC). In order to avoid the poison of PEMFC’s Pt-based catalyst due to the presence of ppm levels of CO, the hydrogen feed needs to be ultra-pure. The industrial process for hydrogen production, which is a multi-step energy intensive process followed by further separation/purification, can be a potential source [1]. However, as an alternative method a Pd-based membrane reactor (MR) can be used owing to its ability to provide the pure hydrogen without any further purification. Moreover, the MR works at milder operating conditions compared to the traditional system. In the last years, Pd-based composite membranes, i.e. thin metallic layer supported on such porous materials as ceramics or stainless steel, have been considered owing to their lower cost (thin Pd layer) and higher mechanical resistant (porous support) than dense Pd-based ones [2]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the potentialities of a Pd membrane supported on porous stainless steel (PSS) with the intent to produce pure hydrogen from methane steam reforming. The initial characterization of the membrane by way of ideal selectivity took place at 400°C with H2, He and N2 and P in the range of 1.5 - 3.0 bar. After ideal selectivity characterization of the Pd/PSS membrane, methane steam reforming reaction is carried out in MR by varying reaction pressure and sweep gas flow rate. The best performance of the Pd-based MR is obtained at 400 °C, 3.0 bar and 100 mL/min of sweep-gas, yielding a methane conversion of 84%, hydrogen recovery of 82%, and obtaining a pure hydrogen stream at the permeate side. REFERENCES [1] Rostrup-Nielsen, J.R., Catalytic steam reforming. 1984: Springer. [2] Liguori, S., et al., Performance of a Pd/PSS membrane reactor to produce high purity hydrogen via WGS reaction. Catalysis Today, 2012. 193(1): p. 87-94

Redesigning a Web-Based Stakeholder Consensus Meeting About Core Outcomes for Clinical Trials: Formative Feedback Study

Background: Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes makes it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK-government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. Objective: An observational study evaluated the modifications taken by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. Methods: The study team worked with healthcare users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experience of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered (i) pre-meeting preparation, (ii) process of facilitated discussions and voting, (iii) ability to contribute, and (iv) perceived fairness of the outcome. Results: Overall, 53 out of 54 feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and managing the unpredictability of tasks on the day. Conclusion: Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximise inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, as well as to reduce research costs

Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study:Protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey

BackgroundSingle-sided deafness (SSD) describes the presence of a unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. SSD disrupts spatial hearing and understanding speech in background noise. It has functional, psychological and social consequences. Potential options for rehabilitation include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms of these interventions are documented inconsistently in the literature, using a variety of outcomes ranging from tests of speech perception to quality of life questionnaires. It is therefore difficult to compare interventions when rehabilitating SSD. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study is an international initiative that aims to develop a minimum set of core outcomes for use in future trials of SSD interventions.Methods/designThe CROSSSD study adopts an international two-round online modified Delphi survey followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a patient-centred core outcome domain set for SSD based on what is considered critical and important for assessing whether an intervention for SSD has worked.DiscussionThe resulting core outcome domain set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials and could have further applications in guiding the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Standardisation will facilitate comparison of research findings

Redesigning a web-based stakeholder consensus meeting about core outcomes for clinical trials: Formative feedback study

Background:Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes makes it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK-government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study.Objective:An observational study evaluated the modifications taken by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol.Methods:The study team worked with healthcare users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experience of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered (i) pre-meeting preparation, (ii) process of facilitated discussions and voting, (iii) ability to contribute, and (iv) perceived fairness of the outcome.Results:Overall, 53 out of 54 feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and managing the unpredictability of tasks on the day.Conclusions:Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximise inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, as well as to reduce research costs