A five-year retrospective study of the epidemiological characteristics and visual outcomes of patients hospitalized for ocular trauma in a Mediterranean area

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine the epidemiological characteristics and visual outcome of ocular trauma in southern Italy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All cases of ocular trauma admitted to Department of Ophthalmology of Palermo University, Italy, from January 2001–December 2005 were retrospectively reviewed for open- or closed-globe injury (OGI or CGI). Data extracted included age, sex, residence, initial and final visual acuity (VA), cause and treatment of injury, hospitalization. The injuries were classified by Ocular Trauma Classification System (OTCS) and Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology (BETT). We also referred to the Ocular Trauma Score (OTS) in evaluating the final visual outcome.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 298 eyes, there were 146 OGI and 152 CGI. Fifty eyes (16.8%) had an intraocular foreign body (IOFB). The annual incidence of eye injuries was 4.9 per 100,000. Most injuries occurred in men (84.6%, p < 0.0005), with an average age of 33.0 vs. 49.9 for women (p = 0.005). Cause of injury differed significantly by gender (p = 0.001) and urban vs. rural location (p = 0.009). The most frequent causes in men were outdoor activities related injuries (30.9%), work-related (25.4%), and sport-related (17.5%), and in women were home-related (52.2%) and outdoor activities related injuries (30.4%). In urban areas, road accidents were more frequent; in rural areas, work-related injuries were more frequent with a greater rate of IOFBs than in urban areas (p = 0.002).</p> <p>The incidence of OGI and CGI differed in work-related injuries (p < 0.0005), sport-related injuries (p < 0.0005), and assaults (p = 0.033). The final visual acuity was 20/40 (6/12) or better in 144 eyes (48.3%), 20/40–20/200 (6/12–6/60) in 90 eyes (30.2%), and <20/200 (6/60) or less in 46 eyes (15.5%). Eighteen eyes (6%) had a final acuity of no light perception. Of those eyes that presented with hand motion vision or better, 220 (86.6%) had a final vision of better than 20/200 (6/60). Initial visual acuity was found to be correlated with final visual acuity (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.658; p < 0.001). The likelihood of the final visual acuities in the OTS categories was correlated to that of the OTS study group in 12 of 14 cases (85.7%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This analysis provides insight into the epidemiology of patients hospitalized for ocular trauma. The findings indicate that ocular trauma is a significant cause of visual loss in this population.</p

Hybrid method for selection of the optimal process of leachate treatment in waste treatment and valorization plants or landfills

“The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0834-4”Leachate from waste landfill or treatment plants is a very complex and highly contaminated liquid effluent. In its composition, it is found dissolved organic matter, inorganic salts, heavy metals, and other xenobiotic organic compounds, so it can be toxic, carcinogenic, and capable of inducing a potential risk to biota and humans. European law does not allow such leachate to leave the premises without being depolluted. There are many procedures that enable debugging, always combining different techniques. Choosing the best method to use in each case is a complex decision, as it depends on many tangible and intangible factors that must be weighed to achieve a balance between technical, cost, and environmental sustainability. It is presenting a hybrid method for choosing the optimal combination of techniques to apply in each case, by combining a multicriteria hierarchical analysis based on expert data obtained by the Delphi method with an analysis by the method of VIKOR to reach a consensus solution.Martín Utrillas, MG.; Reyes Medina, M.; Curiel Esparza, J.; Cantó Perelló, J. (2015). Hybrid method for selection of the optimal process of leachate treatment in waste treatment and valorization plants or landfills. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 17(4):873-885. doi:10.1007/s10098-014-0834-4S873885174Abbas AA, Guo J, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi WS (2009) Review on landfill leachate treatments. AJAS 6(4):672–684Abood AR, Bao J, Abudi Z, Zheng D, Gao C (2013) Pretreatment of nonbiodegradable landfill leachate by air stripping coupled with agitation as ammonia stripping and coagulation–flocculation processes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(6):1069–1076Ahn WY, Kang MS, Yim SK, Choi KH (2002) Advanced landfill leachate treatment using an integrated membrane process. Desalination 149(1–3):109–114Al-Subhi Al-Harbi KM (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manag 19:19–27Bernasconi M, Choirat C, Seri R (2014) Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: theory and evidence. Eur J Oper Res 232(3):584–592Boopathy R, Karthikeyan S, Mandal AB, Sekaran G (2013) Characterization and recovery of sodium chloride from salt-laden solid waste generated from leather industry. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(1):117–124Brechet T, Tulkens H (2009) Beyond BAT: selecting optimal combinations of available techniques, with an example from the limestone industry. J Environ Manag 90:1790–1801Canto-Perello J, Curiel-Esparza J, Calvo V (2013) Criticality and threat analysis on utility tunnels for planning security policies of utilities in urban underground space. Expert Syst Appl 40(11):4707–4714Chen Y, Liu C, Nie J, Wu S, Wang D (2014) Removal of COD and decolorizing from landfill leachate by Fenton’s reagent advanced oxidation. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(1):189–193Chiochetta CG, Goetten LC, Almeida SM, Quaranta G, Cotelle S, Radetski CM (2014) Leachates from solid wastes: chemical and eco(geno)toxicological differences between leachates obtained from fresh and stabilized industrial organic sludge. Environ Sci Pollut R 21:1090–1098Chiumenti A, da Borso F, Chiumenti R, Teri F, Segantin P (2013) Treatment of digestate from a co-digestion biogas plant by means of vacuum evaporation: tests for process optimization and environmental sustainability. Waste Manag 33(6):1339–1344Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1999) April 26th 1999, on the landfill of waste. European Union Council, Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999 P. 0001–0019Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J (2012) Understanding the major drivers for implementation of municipal sustainable policies in underground space. Int J Sust Dev World 19(6):506–514Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J (2013) Selecting utilities placement techniques in urban underground engineering. Arch Civ Mech Eng 13(2):276–285Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J, Calvo MA (2004) Establishing sustainable strategies in urban underground engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 10(3):523–530Dong Y, Zhang G, Hong WC, Xu Y (2010) Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decis Support Syst 49:281–289Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective Optimization in River Basin Development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, van Lier JB (2013) Effect of support material properties on dynamic membrane filtration performance. Separ Sci Technol 48(15):2263–2269Gracht HA (2012) Consensus measurement in Delphi studies, review and implications for future quality assurance. Forecast Soc Chang 79(8):1525–1536Grisey E, Laffray X, Contoz O, Cavalli E, Mudry J, Aleya L (2012) The bioaccumulation performance of reeds and cattails in a constructed treatment wetland for removal of heavy metals in landfill leachate treatment (Etueffont, France). Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1723–1741Guoliang Z, Lei Q, Qin M, Zheng F, Dexin W (2013) Aerobic SMBR/reverse osmosis system enhanced by Fenton oxidation for advanced treatment of old municipal landfill leachate. Bioresour Technol 142:261–268Gupta SK, Singh G (2007) Assessment of the Efficiency and Economic Viability of Various Methods of Treatment of Sanitary Landfill Leachate. Environ Monit Assess 135:107–117Heyer KU, Stegmann R (2005) Landfill systems, sanitary landfilling of solid wastes, and long-term problems with leachate. In: Jördening HJ, Winter J (eds) Environmental Biotechnology. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, p 375Hsu CC, Sandord BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. PARE 12(10):1–7Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH (2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32(4):297–336Lee WS (2013) Merger and acquisition evaluation and decision making model. Serv Ind J 33(15–16):1473–1494Lee GKL, Chan EHW (2008) The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc Indic Res 89(1):155–168Li G, Wang W, Du Q (2010) Applicability of nanofiltration for the advanced treatment of landfill leachate. J Appl Polym Sci 116(4):2343–2347Mela K, Tiainen T, Heinisuo M (2012) Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Adv Eng Inform 26:716–726Ozdemir MS, Saaty TL (2006) The unknown in decision making, what to do about it. Eur J Oper Res 174(1):349–359Renou S, Givaudan JG, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F, Moulin P (2008) Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard Mater 150(3):468–493Ritzkowski M, Stegmann R (2012) Landfill aeration worldwide: concepts, indications and findings. Waste Manag 32(7):1411–1419Romero C, Ramos P, Costa C, Marquez MC (2013) Raw and digested municipal waste compost leachate as potential fertilizer: comparison with a commercial fertilizer. J Clean Prod 59:73–78Roubelat F (2011) The Delphi method as a ritual: inquiring the Delphi Oracle. Forecast Soc Chang 78(9):1491–1499Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. Mc Graw-Hill, New YorkSaaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghSaaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Saaty TL (2012) Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, 3rd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghSan Cristobal J (2012) Contractor selection using multicriteria decision-making methods. J Constr Eng M 138(6):751–758Sayadi MK, Heydari M, Shahanaghi K (2009) Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Appl Math Model 33:2257–2262Statnikova RB, Bordetskya A, Statnikov A (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of real-life engineering optimization problems: statement and solution. Nonlinear Anal 63:685–696Syamsuddin J (2010) The use of AHP in security policy decision making: an open office calc application. JSW 5(10):1162–1169Thapa RB, Murayama Y (2010) Drivers of urban growth in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal: examining the efficacy of the analytic hierarchy process. App Geogr 30(1):70–83van Praagh M, Heerenklage J, Smidt E, Modin H, Stegmann R, Persson KM (2009) Potential emissions from two mechanically–biologically pretreated (MBT) wastes. Waste Manag 29(2):859–868Vedaraman N, Shamshath BS, Srinivasan SV (2013) Response surface methodology for decolourisation of leather dye using ozonation in a packed bed reactor. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(4):607–616Wang Q, Matsufuji Y, Dong L, Huang Q, Hirano F, Tanaka A (2006) Research on leachate recirculation from different types of landfills. Waste Manag 26:815–824Xing W, Lu W, Zhao Y (2013) Environmental impact assessment of leachate recirculation in landfill of municipal solid waste by comparing with evaporation and discharge (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag 33(2):382–389Yang W, Zhang KN, Chen YG, Zhou XZ, Jin FX (2013) Prediction on contaminant migration in aquifer of fractured granite substrata of landfill. J Cent South Univ 20(11):3193–3201Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Tamosaitiene J (2011) Selection of construction enterprises management strategy based on SWOT and multi-criteria analysis. ACME 11(4):1063–108