CO2 capture from natural gas combined cycles by CO2 selective membranes

This paper performs a techno-economic analysis of natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) power plants integrated with CO2 selective membranes for post-combustion CO2 capture. The configuration assessed is based on a two-membrane system: a CO2 capture membrane that separates the CO2 for final sequestration and a CO2 recycle membrane that selectively recycles CO2 to the gas turbine compressor inlet in order to increase the CO2 concentration in the gas turbine flue gas. Three different membrane technologies with different permeability and selectivity have been investigated. The mass and energy balances are calculated by integrating a power plant model, a membrane model and a CO2 purification unit model. An economic model is then used to estimate the cost of electricity and of CO2 avoided. A sensitivity analysis on the main process parameters and economic assumptions is also performed. It was found that a combination of a high permeability membrane with moderate selectivity as a recycle membrane and a very high selectivity membrane with high permeability used for the capture membrane resulted in the lowest CO2 avoided cost of 75 US$/tCO2. This plant features a feed pressure of 1.5 bar and a permeate pressure of 0.2 bar for the capture membrane. This result suggests that membrane systems can be competitive for CO2 capture from NGCC power plants when compared with MEA absorption. However, to achieve significant advantages with respect to benchmark MEA capture, better membrane permeability and lower costs are needed with respect to the state of the art technology. In addition, due to the selective recycle, the gas turbine operates with a working fluid highly enriched with CO2. This requires redesigning gas turbine components, which may represent a major challenge for commercial deployment

Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines

Background & aims: Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC) are managed according to guidelines that are not age-specific. A multidisciplinary international group (DIRECt), composed of 69 experts, was convened to develop the first evidence-based consensus recommendations for eoCRC. Methods: After reviewing the published literature, a Delphi methodology was used to draft and respond to clinically relevant questions. Each statement underwent 3 rounds of voting and reached a consensus level of agreement of ≥80%. Results: The DIRECt group produced 31 statements in 7 areas of interest: diagnosis, risk factors, genetics, pathology-oncology, endoscopy, therapy, and supportive care. There was strong consensus that all individuals younger than 50 should undergo CRC risk stratification and prompt symptom assessment. All newly diagnosed eoCRC patients should receive germline genetic testing, ideally before surgery. On the basis of current evidence, endoscopic, surgical, and oncologic treatment of eoCRC should not differ from later-onset CRC, except for individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. The evidence on chemotherapy is not sufficient to recommend changes to established therapeutic protocols. Fertility preservation and sexual health are important to address in eoCRC survivors. The DIRECt group highlighted areas with knowledge gaps that should be prioritized in future research efforts, including age at first screening for the general population, use of fecal immunochemical tests, chemotherapy, endoscopic therapy, and post-treatment surveillance for eoCRC patients. Conclusions: The DIRECt group produced the first consensus recommendations on eoCRC. All statements should be considered together with the accompanying comments and literature reviews. We highlighted areas where research should be prioritized. These guidelines represent a useful tool for clinicians caring for patients with eoCRC

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Historic-artistic and archaeometric studies of the sculptures of the museum of Ostia

An archaeometric study was conducted on 21 marble sculptures belonging to the collection of the Museum of Ostia. The sculptures consist of statues, reliefs, portraits, and architectural freizes from public buildings, private residences and funerary monuments. The study, aimed at determining the provenance of the marbles used, is based upon the measurement of the oxygen and carbon isotopic composition and the evaluation of the macroscopic features of the marble of the various items, corroborated by the historic-artistic information available. The results obtained indicate that the majority of sculptures are of Luni marble and were very likely crafted by local workshops. Parian and Thasian marbles, two of the finest Greek marbles, were also used; most artefacts made of Parian marble were imported, but the two sculptures of Thasian marble so far studied were probably carved by urban workshops. Relatively limited seem the use of marbles from Anatolia. Our data suggest that at Ostia the marbles from Luni (Carrara) and, to a lesser extent, Paros were the most widely used varieties; only few artefacts carved in marbles from other Classical sources have been found so far in the collection of the Museum. However, more data are needed to confirm this indication