Ammonium recovery from agro-industrial digestate using bioelectrochemical systems

Abstract Growing food and biomass production at the global scale has determined a corresponding increase in the demand for and use of nutrients. In this study, the possibility of recovering nitrogen from agro-industrial digestate using bioelectrochemical systems was investigated: two microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) were fed with synthetic and real digestate (2.5 gNH4+-N L−1). Carbon felt and granular graphite were used as anodes in MEC-1 and MEC-2, respectively. As to synthetic wastewater, the optimal nitrogen load (NL) for MEC-1 and -2 was 1.25 and 0.75 gNH4+-N d−1, respectively. MEC-1 showed better performance in terms of NH4+-N removal efficiency (39 ± 2.5%) and recovery rate (up to 70 gNH4+-N m−2d−1), compared to MEC-2 (33 ± 4.7% and up to 30 gN m−2d−1, respectively). At the optimal hydraulic retention time, lower NH4+-N removal efficiencies and recovery rates were observed when real digestate was fed to MEC-1 (29 ± 6.6% and 60 ± 13 gNH4+-N m−2d−1, respectively) and MEC-2 (21 ± 7.9% and 10 ± 3.6 gNH4+-N m−2d−1, respectively), likely due to the higher complexity of the influent. The average energy requirements were 3.6–3.7 kWh kgNremoved−1, comparable with values previously reported in the literature and lower than conventional ammonia recovery processes. Results are promising and may reduce the need for costly and polluting processes for nitrogen synthesis

Nomenclatural synopsis of cirsium sect. Eriolepis (asteraceae) in Italy

The names of the Italian taxa in Cirsium sect. Eriolepis are discussed. The accepted names are: Cirsium echinatum, C. eriophorum subsp. eriophorum, C. eriophorum subsp. spathulatum, C. ferox, C. italicum, C. lacaitae, C. lobelii, C. morisianum, C. scabrum, C. tenoreanum, C. vallis-demonii subsp. vallis-demonii, C. vallis-demonii subsp. calabrum comb. nov., and C. vulgare (= C. crinitum, C. sylvaticum). Four accepted names are typified by specimens preserved at FI (one lectotype), G (one lectotype and one neotype), P (one lectotype), and by illustrations (two lectotypes). Several other heterotypic synonyms of taxa described from Italy are discussed and six of them are typified. A new combination and status are proposed: C. vallis-demonii subsp. calabrum, based on C. eriophorum var. vallisdemonii f. calabrum

Neuropsychological characterization of aggressive behavior in children and adolescents with cd/odd and effects of single doses of medications: The protocol of the matrics_wp6-1 study

Aggressive behaviors and disruptive/conduct disorders are some of the commonest reasons for referral to youth mental health services; nevertheless, the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in real-world clinical practice remains unclear. In order to define more appropriate targets for innovative pharmacological therapies for disruptive/conduct disorders, the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) funded the MATRICS project (Multidisciplinary Approaches to Translational Research in Conduct Syndromes) to identify neural, genetic, and molecular factors underpinning the pathogenesis of aggression/antisocial behavior in preclinical models and clinical samples. Within the program, a multicentre case-control study, followed by a single-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, randomized acute single-dose medication challenge, was conducted at two Italian sites. Aggressive children and adolescents with conduct disorder (CD) or oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) were compared to the same age (10–17 y) typically developing controls (TDC) on a neuropsychological tasks battery that included both “cold” (e.g., inhibitory control, decision making) and “hot” executive functions (e.g., moral judgment, emotion processing, risk assessment). Selected autonomic measures (heart rate variability, skin conductance, salivary cortisol) were recorded before/during/after neuropsychological testing sessions. The acute response to different drugs (methylphenidate/atomoxetine, risperidone/aripiprazole, or placebo) was also examined in the ODD/CD cohort in order to identify potential neuropsychological/physiological mechanisms underlying aggression. The paper describes the protocol of the clinical MATRICS WP6-1 study, its rationale, the specific outcome measures, and their implications for a precision medicine approach

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a major public health issue. Pharmacological treatments play an important role in the multimodal treatment of ADHD. Currently, there is a lack of up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on how available ADHD drugs compare and rank in terms of efficacy and tolerability, in children or adolescents as well as in adults. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to rank pharmacological treatments for ADHD according to their efficacy and tolerability profiles. Methods and analysis We will search a broad range of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science, with no date or language restrictions. We will also search for unpublished studies using international clinical trial registries and contacting relevant drug companies. We will identify and include available parallel-group, cross-over and cluster randomised trials that compare methylphenidate, dexmethylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, clonidine, guanfacine, bupropion or modafinil (as oral therapy) either with each other or to placebo, in children, adolescents or adults with ADHD. Primary outcomes will be efficacy (indicated by reduction in severity of ADHD core symptoms measured on a standardised scale) and tolerability (the proportion of patients who left a study early due to side effects). Secondary outcomes will be global functioning, acceptability (proportion of patients who left the study early by any cause) and changes in blood pressure and body weight. NMA will be conducted in STATA within a frequentist framework. The quality of RCTs will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. Ethics and dissemination No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and possibly presented at relevant national and international conferences

Computerized cognitive training in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with blinded and objective outcomes

This meta-analysis investigated the effects of computerized cognitive training (CCT) on clinical, neuropsychological and academic outcomes in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors searched PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science until 19th January 2022 for parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using CCT in individuals with ADHD. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) between CCT and comparator arms. RCT quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (PROSPERO: CRD42021229279). Thirty-six RCTs were meta-analysed, 17 of which evaluated working memory training (WMT). Analysis of outcomes measured immediately post-treatment and judged to be “probably blinded” (PBLIND; trial n = 14) showed no effect on ADHD total (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI[−0.01 to −0.25]) or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms (SMD = 0.12, 95%[−0.03 to−0.28]). These findings remained when analyses were restricted to trials (n: 5–13) with children/adolescents, low medication exposure, semi-active controls, or WMT or multiple process training. There was a small improvement in inattention symptoms (SMD = 0.17, 95%CI[0.02–0.31]), which remained when trials were restricted to semi-active controls (SMD = 0.20, 95%CI[0.04–0.37]), and doubled in size when assessed in the intervention delivery setting (n = 5, SMD = 0.40, 95%CI[0.09–0.71]), suggesting a setting-specific effect. CCT improved WM (verbal: n = 15, SMD = 0.38, 95%CI[0.24–0.53]; visual-spatial: n = 9, SMD = 0.49, 95%CI[0.31–0.67]), but not other neuropsychological (e.g., attention, inhibition) or academic outcomes (e.g., reading, arithmetic; analysed n: 5–15). Longer-term improvement (at ~6-months) in verbal WM, reading comprehension, and ratings of executive functions were observed but relevant trials were limited in number (n: 5–7). There was no evidence that multi-process training was superior to working memory training. In sum, CCT led to shorter-term improvements in WM, with some evidence that verbal WM effects persisted in the longer-term. Clinical effects were limited to small, setting specific, short-term effects on inattention symptoms

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Methods: We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. Findings: 133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD −1·02, 95% CI −1·19 to −0·85 for amphetamines, −0·78, −0·93 to −0·62 for methylphenidate, −0·56, −0·66 to −0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD −0·82, 95% CI −1·16 to −0·48) and modafinil (−0·76, −1·15 to −0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD −0·79, 95% CI −0·99 to −0·58), methylphenidate (−0·49, −0·64 to −0·35), bupropion (−0·46, −0·85 to −0·07), and atomoxetine (−0·45, −0·58 to −0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, −0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36–3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54–6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20–5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28–4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40–4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42–11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs −0·46 to −0·24) and adults (−0·94 to −0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. Interpretation: Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. Funding: Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre