Cs3Sm7Se12

The title compound, tricaesium hepta­samarium(III) dodeca­selenide, is setting a new starting point for realization of the channel structure of the Cs3 M 7Se12 series, now with M = Sm, Gd–Er. This Cs3Y7Se12-type arrangement is structurally based on the Z-type sesquiselenides M 2Se3 adopting the Sc2S3 structure. Thus, the structural set-up of Cs3Sm7Se12 consists of edge- and vertex-connected [SmSe6]9− octa­hedra [d Ø(Sm3+ – Se2−) = 2.931 Å], forming a rock-salt-related network [Sm7Se12]3− with channels along [001] that are apt to take up monovalent cations (here Cs+) with coordination numbers of 7 + 1 for one and of 6 for the second cation. The latter cation has a trigonal–prismatic coordination and shows half-occupancy, resulting in an impossible short distance [2.394 (4) Å] between symmetrically coupled Cs+ cations of the same kind. While one Sm atom occupies Wyckoff position 2b with site symmetry ..2/m, all other 11 crystallographically different atoms (namely 2 × Cs, 3 × Sm and 6 × Se) are located at Wyckoff positions 4g with site symmetry ..m

C-type Nd2Se3

The title compound, neodymium sesquiselenide, is isotypic with the other known rare-earth metal(III) selenides M 2Se3 (M = La–Pr and Sm–Lu) with the cubic C-type structure. It adopts a cation-defective Th3P4-type arrangement with close to 8/9 of the unique neodymium-cation site occupied, leading to the composition Nd2.667Se4 (Z = 4) or Nd2Se3 (Z = 5.333), respectively. The Nd3+ cations are thus surrounded by eight selenide anions, forming trigonal [NdSe8]13− dodeca­hedra, whereas the Se2− anions exhibit a sixfold coordination, but due to the under-occupation of neodymium, each one is statistically surrounded by only 5.333 cations. The crystal studied was a merohedral twin with a 0.31 (6):0.69 (6) domain ratio

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries