Abatement of styrene waste gas emission by biofilter and biotrickling filter: comparison of packing materials and inoculation procedures

The removal of styrene was studied using 2 biofilters packed with peat and coconut fibre (BF1-P and BF2-C, respectively) and 1 biotrickling filter (BTF) packed with plastic rings. Two inoculation procedures were applied: an enriched culture with strain Pseudomonas putida CECT 324 for biofilters and activated sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant for the BTF. Inlet loads (ILs) between 10 and 45 g m-3 h-1 and empty bed residence times (EBRTs) from 30 to 120 s were applied. At inlet concentrations ranging between 200 and 400 mg Nm-3, removal efficiencies between 70 and 95% were obtained in the 3 bioreactors. Maximum elimination capacities (ECs) of 81 and 39 g m-3 h-1 were obtained for the first quarter of the BF1-P and BF2-C, respectively (IL of 173 g m-3 h-1 and EBRT of 60 s in BF1-P; IL of 89 g m-3 h-1 and EBRT of 90 s in BF2-C). A maximum EC of 52 g m-3 h-1 was obtained for the first third of the BTF (IL of 116 g m-3 h-1, EBRT of 45 s). Problems regarding high pressure drop appeared in the peat biofilter, whereas drying episodes occurred in the coconut fibre biofilter. DGGE revealed that the pure culture used for biofilter inoculation was not detected by day 105. Although 2 different inoculation procedures were applied, similar styrene removal at the end of the experiments was observed. The use as inoculum of activated sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plant appears a more feasible option

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit