The deuteron: structure and form factors

A brief review of the history of the discovery of the deuteron in provided. The current status of both experiment and theory for the elastic electron scattering is then presented.Comment: 80 pages, 33 figures, submited to Advances in Nuclear Physic

Structure determination of the (1×2) and (1×3) reconstructions of Pt(110) by low-energy electron diffraction

The atomic geometry of the (1×2) and (1×3) structures of the Pt(100) surface has been determined from a low-energy electron-diffraction intensity analysis. Both structures are found to be of the missing-row type, consisting of (111) microfacets, and with similar relaxations in the subsurface layers. In both reconstructions the top-layer spacing is contracted by approximately 20% together with a buckling of about 0.17 Å in the third layer and a small lateral shift of about 0.04 Å in the second layer. Further relaxations down to the fourth layer were detectable. The surface relaxations correspond to a variation of interatomic distances, ranging from -7% to +4%, where in general a contraction of approximately 3% for the distances parallel to the surface occurs. The Pendry and Zanazzi-Jona R factors were used in the analysis, resulting in a minimum value of RP=0.36 and RZJ=0.26 for 12 beams at normal incidence for the (1×2) structure, and similar agreement for 19 beams of the (1×3) structure. The (1×3) structure has been reproducibly obtained after heating the crystal in an oxygen atmosphere of 5×10-6 mbar at 1200 K for about 30 min and could be removed by annealing at 1800 K for 45 min after which the (1×2) structure appeared again. Both reconstructed surfaces are clean within the detection limits of the Auger spectrometer. CO adsorption lifts the reconstruction in both structures. After desorption at 500 K the initial structures appear again, indicating that at least one of the reconstructions does not represent the equilibrium structure of the clean surface and may be stabilized by impurities

Exploring types of focused factories in hospital care: a multiple case study

Background: Focusing on specific treatments or diseases is proposed as a way to increase the efficiency of hospital care. The definition of "focus" or "focused factory", however, lacks clarity. Examples in health care literature relate to very different organizations.\ud Our aim was to explore the application of the focused factory concept in hospital care, including an indication of its performance, resulting in a conceptual framework that can be helpful in further identifying different types of focused factories. Thus contributing to the understanding of the diversity of examples found in the literature. - \ud \ud Methods: We conducted a cross-case comparison of four multiple-case studies into hospital care. To cover a broad array of focus, different specialty fields were selected. Each study investigated the organizational context, the degree of focus, and the operational performance. Focus was measured using an instrument translated from industry. Data were collected using both qualitative and quantitative methods and included site visits. A descriptive analysis was performed at the case study and cross-case studies level. - \ud \ud Results: The operational performance per specialty field varied considerably, even when cases showed comparable degrees of focus. Cross-case comparison showed three focus domains. The product domain considered specialty based focused factories that treated patients for a single-specialty, but did not pursue a specific strategy nor adapted work-designs or layouts. The process domain considered delivery based focused factories that treated multiple groups of patients and often pursued strategies to improve efficiency and timeliness and adapted work-designs and physical layouts to minimize delays. The product-process domain considered procedure based focused factories that treated a single well-defined group of patients offering one type of treatment. The strategic focusing decisions and the design of the care delivery system appeared especially important for delivery and procedure based focused factories. - \ud \ud Conclusions: Focus in hospital care relates to limitations on the patient group treated and the range of services offered. Based on these two dimensions, we identified three types of focused factories: specialty based, delivery based, and procedure based. Focus could lead to better operational performance, but only when clear strategic focusing decisions are made

Pesticide residue testing of grains and oil seeds: Minimizing false positives and false negatives

GC-MS based pesticide residue testing in grains often results in enhanced response, with the degree of enhancement being dependent on the type of grain. Some grain matrices cause matrix interference, leading to false positives and false negatives, as well as significant limitations in limits of detection (LOD) and quantification, particularly when published multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) assays are used without validation. Matrix-matched standards and analyte protectants are used routinely in pesticide analysis to combat enhancement and suppression, and to provide a more accurate indication of the residue levels present. Certain pesticide and matrix combinations are well known for illustrating the problems listed above.1,2 It is important to remember that published MRMs should only be used following validation to demonstrate that they are free from matrix interference in the matrix system under study