Direct Ink 3D Printing of Porous Carbon Monoliths for Gas Separations

Additive manufacturing or 3D printing is the advanced method of manufacturing monolithic adsorbent materials. Unlike beads or pellets, 3D monolithic adsorbents possess the advantages of widespread structural varieties, low heat and mass transfer resistance, and low channeling of fluids. Despite a large volume of research on 3D printing of adsorbents having been reported, such studies on porous carbons are highly limited. In this work, we have reported direct ink 3D printing of porous carbon; the ink consisted of commercial activated carbon, a gel of poly(4-vinylphenol) and Pluronic F127 as plasticizer, and bentonite as the binder. The 3D printing was performed in a commercial 3D printer that has been extensively modified in the lab. Upon 3D printing and carbonization, the resultant 3D printed porous carbon demonstrated a stable structure with a BET area of 400 m2/g and a total pore volume of 0.27 cm3/g. The isotherms of six pure-component gases, CO2, CH4, C2H6, N2, CO, and H2, were measured on this carbon monolith at 298 K and pressure up to 1 bar. The selectivity of four gas pairs, C2H6/CH4, CH4/N2, CO/H2, and CO2/N2, was calculated by Ideally Adsorbed Solution Theory (IAST) and reported. Ten continuous cycles of adsorption and desorption of CO2 on this carbon confirmed no loss of working capacity of the adsorbent

Veterinary Conduct and Animal Welfare

This paper is a lecture presented to the same Association but fifteen years later: the 131st Annual Congress in 1984. This second presentation contemplates two points: First, it tries to indicate how this criticism has gradually emerged and a historical outline is put forth of the development of veterinary medicine, a differentiation being made between a mythical, a technical, and a critical approach. Second, a discussion of how veterinarians have to associate themselves with this criticism in their professional conduct is presented. This discussion is necessary for two reasons. Veterinarians have increasingly become aware that they bear a professional responsibility not only for animal health but also for animal welfare; and, veterinarians are expected to give their views in concrete situations

Synthesis and Antibacterial Evaluation of a New Series of N-Alkyl-2-alkynyl/(E)-alkenyl-4-(1H)-quinolones

To gain further insight into the structural requirements of the aliphatic group at position 2 for their antimycobacterial activity, some N-alkyl-4-(1H)-quinolones bearing position 2 alkynyls with various chain length and triple bond positions were prepared and tested for in vitro antibacterial activity against rapidly-growing strains of mycobacteria, the vaccine strain Mycobacterium bovis BCG, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains, EMRSA-15 and -16. The compounds were also evaluated for inhibition of ATP-dependent MurE ligase of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The lowest MIC value of 0.5 mg/L (1.2–1.5 µM) was found against M. fortuitum and M. smegmatis. These compounds displayed no or only weak toxicity to the human lung fibroblast cell line MRC-5 at 100 µM concentration. The quinolone derivatives exhibited pronounced activity against the epidemic MRSA strains (EMRSA-15 and -16) with MIC values of 2–128 mg/L (5.3–364.7 µM), and M. bovis BCG with an MIC value of 25 mg/L (66.0–77.4 µM). In addition, the compounds inhibited the MurE ligase of M. tuberculosis with moderate to weak activity showing IC50 values of 200–774 µM. The increased selectivity towards mycobacterial bacilli with reference to MRC-5 cells observed for 2-alkynyl quinolones compared to their corresponding 2-alkenyl analogues serves to highlight the mycobacterial specific effect of the triple bond. Exploration of a terminal bromine atom at the side chain of N-alkyl-2-(E)-alkenyl-4-(1H)-quinolones showed improved antimycobacterial activity whereas a cyclopropyl residue at N-1 was suggested to be detrimental to antibacterial activity

Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: A multinational case study approach

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Funders of health research increasingly seek to understand how best to allocate resources in order to achieve maximum value from their funding. We built an international consortium and developed a multinational case study approach to assess benefits arising from health research. We used that to facilitate analysis of factors in the production of research that might be associated with translating research findings into wider impacts, and the complexities involved. Methods: We built on the Payback Framework and expanded its application through conducting co-ordinated case studies on the payback from cardiovascular and stroke research in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. We selected a stratified random sample of projects from leading medical research funders. We devised a series of innovative steps to: minimize the effect of researcher bias; rate the level of impacts identified in the case studies; and interrogate case study narratives to identify factors that correlated with achieving high or low levels of impact. Results: Twenty-nine detailed case studies produced many and diverse impacts. Over the 15 to 20 years examined, basic biomedical research has a greater impact than clinical research in terms of academic impacts such as knowledge production and research capacity building. Clinical research has greater levels of wider impact on health policies, practice, and generating health gains. There was no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts. We identified various factors associated with high impact. Interaction between researchers and practitioners and the public is associated with achieving high academic impact and translation into wider impacts, as is basic research conducted with a clinical focus. Strategic thinking by clinical researchers, in terms of thinking through pathways by which research could potentially be translated into practice, is associated with high wider impact. Finally, we identified the complexity of factors behind research translation that can arise in a single case. Conclusions: We can systematically assess research impacts and use the findings to promote translation. Research funders can justify funding research of diverse types, but they should not assume academic impacts are proxies for wider impacts. They should encourage researchers to consider pathways towards impact and engage potential research users in research processes. © 2014 Wooding et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.RAND Europe and HERG, with subsequent funding from the NHFA, the HSFC and the CIHR. This research was also partially supported by the Policy Research Programme in the English Department of Health

The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews : a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research

© 2014 Bunn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR funded CRGs during the years 2007-11. Methods: We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development, and impact on practice/services). Results: A total of 1502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR funded CRGs between 2007-11. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance; 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use. Conclusions: Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.Peer reviewe

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits

Quality of life returns from basic research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessing the consequences of research is an increasingly important task in research and innovation policy. This paper takes a broader view of those consequences than the conventional economic approach, placing researchers and their activities in the centre of the assessment process and examining results for professional practice and general education as well as contributions to knowledge.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The paper uses historical and documentary analysis to illustrate the approach, focusing on U.S. biomedicine over the past century. At aggregate level, the analysis attributes portions of the change in aggregate health indicators to research and research-based institutions, through several available types of logic: either through correlations between timing of institutional changes and changes in the indicators or through direct or indirect causal connections.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis shows that while biomedical research has certainly contributed to improved health in the United States, other factors have also contributed. In some ways the institutional structure of science-based medicine has worked against creating benefits for some groups in U.S. society.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The paper concludes with a call for more strategic attention to dimensions of impact other than knowledge outcomes and for participatory planning for research.</p

Bacteremia After Prophylaxis II

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141639/1/jper0371.pd