Análise de envoltória e do sistema de iluminação a partir do Regulamentotécnico da qualidade para eficiência energética de edifícios comerciais, deserviços e públicos para avaliação de desempenho de sistemas de fachada e de proteções solares.

Exportado OPUSMade available in DSpace on 2019-08-14T16:12:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 dissertacao_iara_gon_alves_dos_santos.pdf: 4666442 bytes, checksum: 2d3c7a15e1d7dc1e2d1a0c386cc8a090 (MD5) dissertacao_igds.pdf: 4666458 bytes, checksum: 44daeb6f1d7dd7bda1897cc6ec3b5ae2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 19Instrumentos reguladores de consumo de energia em edifícios são mecanismos importantes para promover a sustentabilidade no ambiente construído. O primeiro instrumento do governo brasileiro data de 2009 e é intitulado Regulamento Técnico da Qualidade para Eficiência Energética de Edifícios Comerciais, de Serviços e Públicos. Neste Regulamento, o desempenho do edifício é classificado em: envoltória, sistema de iluminação e sistema de condicionamento de ar. O principal objetivo deste trabalho é o de levantar considerações sobre o Regulamento, aplicando-o num projeto de edifício a ser implantado na cidade de Belo Horizonte. A envoltória do prédio e o sistema de iluminação de um de seus ambientes típicos de escritório são analisados pelo método prescritivo do documento e por simulação termo-energética usando os softwares EnergyPlus e DesignBuilder. Foram realizadas análises paramétricas com variações do sistema de fachada envidraçada dupla. Os tipos de vidro sobre a abertura foram alterados, a fachada original foi substituída por alvenaria e foram inseridas proteções solares (brises e prateleiras de luz). As proteções solares foram definidas por dois princípios: um pela combinação de ângulos de sombreamento que gera um Indicador de Consumo mínimo, outro pelo método da Temperatura Neutra (Tn). Além disso, o sistema de fachada original foi simulado de dois modos diferentes. No primeiro, as múltiplas camadas que compõem a fachada - vidro, ar e placa cimentícia - foram representadas por uma superfície única com transmitância térmica equivalente. No segundo, as camadas foram modeladas como zonas térmicas individualizadas, o que permitiu simular com maior precisão os efeitos do vidro no sistema. Partindo da análise prescritiva do Regulamento, a envoltória do edifício obteve a classificação C e o sistema de iluminação do ambiente obteve a classificação B. Diante destes resultados, foram feitas proposições e avaliados os esforços necessários para obtenção de classificação A nestes dois critérios. Na fase de simulação do ambiente, dentre os principais resultados tem-se que o vidro tipo low-e de alta transmissão luminosa aumentou o consumo de energia em relação ao vidro de controle solar original, quando instalado sem proteção solar, mas mostrou-se como um dos mais favoráveis ao aproveitamento da iluminação natural. A fachada em alvenaria demonstrou ter desempenho superior à envidraçada, permitindo ainda reduções de até 13% no consumo de energia quando combinada às proteções solares. Finalmente, os resultados da simulação da fachada com transmitância equivalente e com zonas térmicas foram divergentes a ponto de se cogitar a necessidade de outra forma de abordagem deste tipo de sistema envidraçado pelo Regulamento.Legislation about energy consumption of buildings is an important mechanism of the sustainability promotion for the built environment. The first governmental Brazilian instrument, from 2009 is the Technical Quality Legislation of the Level of Energy Efficiency of Commercial, Service and Public Buildings, RTQ-C. It classifies the global performance of buildings through the individual performance of the building envelope, the illumination system and the air conditioning system. The aim of this work is to study this Legislation by applying it to a public building in Belo Horizonte city. The building envelope and its illumination system are analyzed by studying a typical office configuration through the prescriptive method of the RTQ-C and also by thermal-energetic simulation using Energy Plus and Design Builder softwares. Parametrical analysis was carried out of the façade system, compounded partly by double glazing and partly by glazing over a cement plaque. The glass types of the apertures were varied; the glazing and cement plaque part of the façade was substituted by masonry and solar shading devices were introduced in the apertures. The solar protections were defined following two principles: by the better combination of vertical and horizontal angles in order to generate a minimum Consumption Index (IC) according to the prescriptive method of the RTQ-C and by the Neutral Temperature (Tn) Method. Furthermore, the original façade was simulated using two approaches. In the first one, the multiples layers of the façade glass, air and cement plaque were represented by a single surface with an equivalent thermal transmittance. In the second one, the layers were modeled as individual thermal zones, which allowed a better precision in obtaining the thermal effect of the glass layer in the façade system. From the prescriptive analysis of the RTQ-C, the envelope of the whole building was classified C and the lighting system of the office was classified B. From these results, changes in the building were proposed and discussed in order that both could obtain an A classification. In the simulation process, the main results showed that low-e gazing with high light transmittance raised the energy consumption if compared to the originally specified sun control glazing, when installed without solar shading devices, but showed to be the system with better natural light admittance. The masonry façade presented a higher performance than the glass-cement one, showing up to 13% less energy consumption when combined with solar shading devices when compared to the façade system originally proposed. Finally, the results of the simulation of the façade using an equivalent transmittance and using thermal zones were so divergent that one has to consider the need of differently approaching this kind of system in the prescriptive method of the RTQ-C

Usefulness of Adapted Exotic Maize Lines Developed By Doubled Haploid and Single Seed Descent Methods

Adapted exotic maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm, such as BS39, provides a unique opportunity for broadening the genetic base of U.S. Corn Belt germplasm. In vivo doubled haploid (DH) technology has been used to efficiently exploit exotic germplasm. It can help to purge deleterious recessive alleles. The objectives of this study were to determine the usefulness of BS39-derived inbred lines using both SSD and DH methods, to determine the impact of spontaneous as compared to artificial haploid genome doubling on genetic variance among BS39-derived DH lines, and to identify SNP markers associated with agronomic traits among BS39 inbreds monitored at testcross level. We developed two sets of inbred lines directly from BS39 by DH and SSD methods, named BS39_DH and BS39_SSD. Additionally, two sets were derived from a cross between BS39 and A427 (SHGD donor) by DH and SSD methods, named BS39×A427_DH and BS39×A427_SSD, respectively. Grain yield, moisture, plant height, ear height, stalk lodging, and root lodging were measured to estimate genetic parameters. For genome-wide association (GWAS) analysis, inbred lines were genotyped using Genotype-by-Sequencing (GBS) and Diversity Array Technology Sequencing (DArTSeq). Some BS39-derived inbred lines performed better than elite germplasm inbreds and all sets showed significant genetic variance. The presence of spontaneous haploid genome doubling genes did not affect performance of inbred lines. Five SNPs were significant and three of them located within genes related to plant development or abiotic stresses. These results demonstrate the potential of BS39 to add novel alleles to temperate elite germplasm.This is a preprint made available through Research Square at doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-799789/v1. This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p