Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollultants at global and regional scales during the 1980-2010 period

Several different inventories of global and regional anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions are assessed for the 1980-2010 period. The species considered in this study are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and black carbon. The inventories considered include the ACCMIP historical emissions developed in support of the simulations for the IPCC AR5 assessment. Emissions for 2005 and 2010 from the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are also included. Large discrepancies between the global and regional emissions are identified, which shows that there is still no consensus on the best estimates for surface emissions of atmospheric compounds. At the global scale, anthropogenic emissions of CO, NOx and SO2 show the best agreement for most years, although agreement does not necessarily mean that uncertainty is low. The agreement is low for BC emissions, particularly in the period prior to 2000. The best consensus is for NOx emissions for all periods and all regions, except for China, where emissions in 1980 and 1990 need to be better defined Emissions of CO need better quantification in the USA and India for all periods; in Central Europe, the evolution of emissions during the past two decades needs to be better determined. The agreement between the different SO2 emissions datasets is rather good for the USA, but better quantification is needed elsewhere, particularly for Central Europe, India and China. The comparisons performed in this study show that the use of RCP8.5 for the extension of the ACCMIP inventory beyond 2000 is reasonable, until more global or regional estimates become available. Concerning biomass burning emissions, most inventories agree within 50-80%, depending on the year and season. The large differences between biomass burning inventories are due to differences in the estimates of burned areas from the different available products, as well as in the amount of biomass burned

Suplementación de novillitos con dos fuentes energéticas en una pastura de alfalfa y gramíneas a baja asignación de forraje

Se realizó un ensayo de pastoreo con incorporación de grano de maíz o de silaje de maíz sobre pasturas templadas. Se evaluaron dos ciclos; el primero comenzó el 04/05/99 con una duración de 114 días y el segundo se inició el 06/05/01 y duró 117 días. En cada ciclo se utilizaron 13,2 ha de pastura y 60 novillitos británicos, con 203,6 ± 16,8 kg peso inicial promedio. Los suplementos fueron grano de maíz quebrado y silaje de maíz de planta entera, equiparados por energía metabolizable, dentro de cada nivel de suplementación utilizado. Se compararon 5 tratamientos a una carga de 4,54 cabezas/ha con el siguiente número de animales: T1 = pastura sin suplemento (n=20); T2 = pastura + grano maíz al 0,5 % de p.v. (n=10); T3 = pastura + grano maíz al 1,0 % de p.v. (n=10); T4 = pastura + silaje de maíz (base seca) al 0,7 % del p.v. (n=10) y T5 = pastura + silaje de maíz (base seca al 1,4 % de p.v. (n=10)). Las variables evaluadas fueron asignación de MS, contenido de proteína bruta (PB) y de fibra en detergente neutro (FDN) del forraje y aumento medio diario (AMD) de peso vivo. Las medias del AMD se compararon mediante contrastes ortogonales para evaluar los efectos «suplementación» como efecto global, tipo de suplemento, nivel de suplemento y la interacción entre tipo y nivel. En ambos ciclos no hubo efecto de tratamientos en asignación de forraje, contenidos de PB y FDN (p>0.01). La asignación de forraje durante el primer ciclo fue de 16,5; 15,8; 15,8; 14,9 y 15,9 g MS/kg de p.v. en T1, T2, T3, T4 y T5, respectivamente, en tanto que en el segundo fue de 17,3; 16,5; 16,2; 15,8 y 16,2 g MS/kg p.v. en T1, T2, T3, T4 y T5, respectivamente. El AMD promedio de ambos ciclos fue diferente entre tratamientos (p<0,01) siendo T1 con 536 g/día superado por T2, T3, T4 y T5 con 741, 813, 689 y 751 g/día, respectivamente. Hubo un efecto significativo del tipo de suplemento (p<0,03) y del nivel de suplementación (p<0,02), sin interacción de suplemento x nivel. Los resultados reafirman la posibilidad de lograr en otoño-invierno, sobre pasturas de calidad, efectos positivos sobre el AMD, aun con bajos niveles de suplementación

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient &lt; 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018