Are lead-free relaxor ferroelectric materials the most promising candidates for energy storage capacitors?

Dielectric capacitors offer high-power density and ultrafast discharging times as compared to electrochemical capacitors and batteries, making them potential candidates for pulsed power technologies (PPT). However, low energy density in different dielectric materials such as linear dielectrics (LDs), ferroelectrics (FEs), and anti-ferroelectric (AFEs) owing to their low polarization, large hysteresis loss and low breakdown strength, respectively, limits their real time applications. Thus, achieving a material with high dielectric constant, large dielectric breakdown strength and slim hysteresis is imperative to obtain superior energy performance. In this context, relaxor ferroelectrics (RFEs) emerged as the most promising solution for energy storage capacitors. This review starts with a brief introduction of different energy storage devices and current advances of dielectric capacitors in PPT. The latest developments on lead-free RFEs including bismuth alkali titanate based, barium titanate based, alkaline niobite based perovskites both in ceramics and thin films are comprehensively discussed. Further, we highlight the different strategies used to enhance their energy storage performance to meet the requirements of the energy storage world. We also provide future guidelines in this field and therefore, this article opens a window for the current advancement in the energy storage properties of RFEs in a systematic way.This study has been partially supported by (i) DST-SERB, Govt. of India through Grant ECR/2017/000068 (KCS), (ii) UGC through grant nos. F.4-5(59-FRP)/ 2014(BSR) and (iii) Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) in the framework of the Strategic Funding UIDB/FIS/04650/2020 (JPBS). The author A. R. Jayakrishnan acknowledges the Central University of Tamil Nadu, India for his Ph. D fellowship. The authors acknowledge the CERIC-ERIC Consortium for access to experimental facilities and financial support under proposal 20192055

Changes in PD-1- and CTLA-4-bearing blood lymphocytes in ICU COVID-19 patients treated with Favipiravir/Kaletra or Dexamethasone/Remdesivir: a pilot study

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, requires new approaches to control the disease. Programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) play important roles in T-cell exhaustion in severe COVID-19. This study evaluated the frequency of whole blood lymphocytes expressing PD-1 and CTLA-4 in COVID-19 patients upon admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (i.e., severe) or infection ward (i.e., moderate) and after 7 days of antiviral therapy. COVID-19 patients were treated with either favipiravir or Kaletra (FK group, 11 severe and 11 moderate) or dexamethasone plus remdesivir (DR group, 7 severe and 10 moderate) for 7 days in a pilot study. Eight healthy control subjects were also enrolled. The frequency of PD-1+ and CTLA-4+ lymphocytes in whole blood was evaluated by flow cytometry. Patients on DR therapy had shorter hospital stays than those on FK therapy. The frequency of PD-1+ lymphocytes in the FK group at baseline differed between COVID-19 patients and healthy controls, while the frequency of both PD-1+ and CTLA-4+ cells increased significantly 7 days of FK therapy. The response was similar in both moderate and severe patients. In contrast, the frequency of PD-1+ and CTLA-4+ lymphocytes varied significantly between patients and healthy controls before DR treatment. DR therapy enhanced PD-1+ but not the CTLA-4+ frequency of these cells after 7 days. We show that the frequency of PD-1 and CTAL-4-bearing lymphocytes during hospitalization was increased in Iranian ICU COVID-19 patients who received FK treatment, but that the frequency of CTLA-4+ cells was higher at baseline and did not increase in patients who received DR. The effectiveness of DR treatment may reflect differences in T-cell activation or exhaustion status, particularly in CTLA-4-expressing cells

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.Measurement(s) psychological measurement center dot anxiety-related behavior trait center dot Stress center dot response to center dot Isolation center dot loneliness measurement center dot Emotional Distress Technology Type(s) Survey Factor Type(s) geographic location center dot language center dot age of participant center dot responses to the Coronavirus pandemic Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Sample Characteristic - Location global Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data:Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.Peer reviewe

Reduction of visual acuity decreases capacity to evaluate radiographic image quality

Aim: To determine the impact of reduced visual acuity on the evaluation of a test object and appendicular radiographs. Methods: Visual acuity was reduced by two different magnitudes using simulation glasses and compared to normal vision (no glasses). During phase one phantom images were produced for the purpose of counting objects by 13 observers and on phase 2 image appraisal of anatomical structures was performed on anonymized radiographic images by 7 observers. The monitors were calibrated (SMPTE RP133 test pattern) and the room lighting was maintained at 7 ±1 lux. Image display and data on grading were managed using ViewDEX (v.2.0) and the area under the visual grading characteristic (AUCVGC) was calculated using VGC Analyzer (v1.0.2). Inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS. Results: For the evaluation of appendicular radiographs the total interpretation time was longer when visual acuity was reduced with 2 pairs of simulation glasses (15.4 versus 8.9 min). Visual grading analysis showed that observers can lose the ability to detect anatomical and contrast differences when they have a simulated visual acuity reduction, being more challenging to differentiate low contrast details. No simulation glasses, compared to 1 pair gives an AUCVGC of 0.302 (0.280, 0.333), that decreases to 0.197 (0.175, 0.223) when using 2 pairs of glasses. Conclusions: Reduced visual acuity has a significant negative impact on the evaluation of test objects and clinical images. Further work is required to test the impact of reduced visual acuity on visual search, technical evaluation of a wider range of images as well as pathology detection/characterization performance

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis