In-Situ Colloidal MnO2 Deposition and Ozonation of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene

Laboratory experiments are presented that demonstrate a novel in situ semipassive reactive barrier for the degradation of 2,4 dinitrotoluene created by coating aquifer surfaces by deposition of colloidal MnO2, which catalyzes ozone degradation and enhances contaminant oxidation. Ozone is added to the reactive barrier and is transported through the zone with the contaminants by existing hydraulic gradients. The communication presents the preliminary laboratory investigation demonstrating the viability of this method. Studies were conducted by coating Ottawa sand with colloidal MnO2. Results show that concentrations of MnO2 in the range of 0.2 mg/g can be deposited with no measurable change in hydraulic conductivity, that there is significant coverage of the sand material by MnO2, and the deposition was not reversible under a wide range of chemical conditions. Ozonation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in the presence of MnO2- coated sand was demonstrated to result in pseudo-first-order degradation kinetics with respect to DNT with half-lives ranging from 28 to 22 min (at pH 6 and 7, respectively), approximately 25% faster than experiments performed in the absence of MnO2

Developing Collecting Areas through Digital Surrogate Donations: Are the benefits worth the risks?

Special collections librarians at small or medium sized institutions may lack the resources required to build new collecting areas or further enrich the collecting areas mandated by their mission. As one measure to overcome this challenge at Pepperdine University, we are experimenting with an approach that we call “digital surrogate” donations. In these cases, we work with donors to create digital surrogates—typically scans of images or texts—of select physical materials with which donors are not quite ready to part. Per a modified donor agreement, the digital surrogate collections are then made available to researchers through our digital archive and open access digital collections. This technique has proved successful in expanding both our Malibu history and film and television collecting areas, as these digital surrogates serve to attract other (physical) donations to our archives. We also see this as a step in building donor relations as we make explicit the hope that the donor will eventually give us the physical originals as well. This Pecha Kucha talk will demonstrate these benefits, but also address the risks and unknowns inherent to digital surrogate projects. For example, what intellectual property issues are raised when rights to an object in its digital form are separated from rights to an object in its physical form? How do we as an institution monitor the chain of custody of a digital surrogate collection’s original, physical source? And ultimately as research continually shifts to an online environment, will the benefits of digital surrogate collections outweigh any threats they pose to the orthodoxy of archives and manuscripts best practices? * Note: script of talk is included in the Notes section of each slide

What’s your Source?: The dilemma of scanning negatives vs. prints to represent images in photography collections

Recently, Pepperdine University Libraries initiated the digitization and curatorial arrangement of a large collection of negatives and prints donated by the widow of Hanson A. Williams, Jr., one of our alumni. Williams had been a photographer by trade and, after his death, his wife donated 13.86 linear feet of photographic images depicting his life at college and immediately afterwards in the Korean War. After processing the collection, we realized that we had a copious number of Williams’ original negatives in addition to multiple iterations (in some cases) of prints that he had made from these negatives. As we discussed a digitization plan for scanning these images for both digital preservation and access, we realized we had to answer a critical question: Should we use the negative of an image as the scanning source or one of its corresponding prints? The answer is not so straightforward, as each scenario presents its advantages and disadvantages. Scanning from the negative provides greater sharpness and zoom quality, as well as more visual information (portions of a negative image are typically cropped out of printed photographs). Scanning from a print, however, provides a representation of the photographer’s vision, cropped to his or her liking, and—more importantly—developed to certain levels of contrast, tone, saturation, etc. Scanning from the negative, therefore, values the image for its informational and documentary qualities, while scanning from the print emphasizes the artistry and commentary of the photographer. The question quickly becomes philosophical: what is the image in photography collections and why? The answers may depend on the purpose and spirit of the collection: is it a documentary collection about the visual record produced by a body of work or is it a biographical collection about the creator of that work? Having it both ways can be challenging as both the staffing resources required for scanning and the long-term maintenance of the resulting files come with a price tag. This lighting talk summarizes the lively internal discussion we had on this dilemma, provides a brief overview of best practices and precedents, demonstrates the pros and cons of scanning negatives vs. prints, and presents our solution for the Williams collection

The Social Map: Leveraging Historypin for Community Outreach

Kevin Miller, Librarian for Digital Curation and Publication, discusses the steps that Pepperdine University has taken to leverage the free social mapping site Historypin.com to expand awareness of its digital collections and reach out to members of the Malibu community. The presentation was part of a panel discussion (Session 11) featuring LA as Subject members

A Study of Pepperdine Faculty Research Practices: Report for Faculty

This paper, prepared for Pepperdine University faculty, provides a summary of the results drawn from a participatory design study carried out by Pepperdine University Libraries in the fall of 2014. The study sought to identify faculty research practices using in-depth interviews for the purpose of improving library services, spaces, and technologies

Treatment for inclusion body myositis

Background Inclusion body myositis (IBM) is a late-onset inflammatory muscle disease (myopathy) associated with progressive proximal and distal limb muscle atrophy and weakness. Treatment options have attempted to target inflammatory and atrophic features of this condition (for example with immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs, anabolic steroids, and antioxidant treatments), although as yet there is no known effective treatment for reversing or minimising the progression of inclusion body myositis. In this review we have considered the benefits, adverse effects, and costs of treatment in targeting cardinal effects of the condition, namely muscle atrophy, weakness, and functional impairment. Objectives To assess the effects of treatment for IBM. Search methods On 7 October 2014 we search ed the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additionally in November 2014 we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or completed but unpublished trials. Selection criteria We considered randomised or quasi-randomised trials, including cross-over trials, of treatment for IBM in adults compared to placebo or any other treatment for inclusion in the review. We specifically excluded people with familial IBM and hereditary inclusion body myopathy, but we included people who had connective tissue and autoimmune diseases associated with IBM, which may or may not be identified in trials. We did not include studies of exercise therapy or dysphagia management, which are topics of other Cochrane systematic reviews. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Main results The review included 10 trials (249 participants) using different treatment regimens. Seven of the 10 trials assessed single agents, and 3 assessed combined agents. Many of the studies did not present adequate data for the reporting of the primary outcome of the review, which was the percentage change in muscle strength score at six months. Pooled data from two trials of interferon beta-1a (n = 58) identified no important difference in normalised manual muscle strength sum scores from baseline to six months (mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.03) between IFN beta-1a and placebo (moderate-quality evidence). A single trial of methotrexate (MTX) (n = 44) provided moderate-quality evidence that MTX did not arrest or slow disease progression, based on reported percentage change in manual muscle strength sum scores at 12 months. None of the fully published trials were adequately powered to detect a treatment effect. We assessed six of the nine fully published trials as providing very low-quality evidence in relation to the primary outcome measure. Three trials (n = 78) compared intravenous immunoglobulin (combined in one trial with prednisone) to a placebo, but we were unable to perform meta-analysis because of variations in study analysis and presentation of trial data, with no access to the primary data for re-analysis. Other comparisons were also reported in single trials. An open trial of anti-T lymphocyte immunoglobulin (ATG) combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy, based on percentage change in quantitative muscle strength sum scores at 12 months (MD 12.50%, 95% CI 2.43 to 22.57). Data from trials of oxandrolone versus placebo, azathioprine (AZA) combined with MTX versus MTX, and arimoclomol versus placebo did not allow us to report either normalised or percentage change in muscle strength sum scores. A complete analysis of the effects of arimoclomol is pending data publication. Studies of simvastatin and bimagrumab (BYM338) are ongoing. All analysed trials reported adverse events. Only 1 of the 10 trials interpreted these for statistical significance. None of the trials included prespecified criteria for significant adverse events. Authors\u27 conclusions Trials of interferon beta-1a and MTX provided moderate-quality evidence of having no effect on the progression of IBM. Overall trial design limitations including risk of bias, low numbers of participants, and short duration make it difficult to say whether or not any of the drug treatments included in this review were effective. An open trial of ATG combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy based on the percentage change data given. We were unable to draw conclusions from trials of IVIg, oxandrolone, and AZA plus MTX versus MTX. We need more randomised controlled trials that are larger, of longer duration, and that use fully validated, standardised, and responsive outcome measures

Review of Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository, Module 8 of Trends in Archives Practice

Review of Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository, Module 8 of Trends in Archives Practice