Kinetics based characterization of struvite dissolution

As phosphorus removal and recovery has become the new standard of wastewater treatment new technologies have quickly been implemented to meet the task. The Ostara Pearl is a crystallizer technology well known in the field of struvite precipitation for plants equipped with enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR). By feeding anaerobically digested EBPR sludge to the Pearl and dosing Mg, struvite precipitation is induced for high rates of P removal. However, one downfall of crystallizers is the generation of poorly characterized fine particulate matter during normal operation, which leave the reactor and disrupt EBPR efficacy. The main objective of this work was to characterize the dissolution of field grown struvite from an Ostara Pearl reactor. Dissolution rate constants between 0.94 and 2.61 mm/min were found for field grown struvite using the shrinking object model – a surface area dependent empirical kinetics-based dissolution model. Enhanced solubility of some field recovered struvite relative to reference struvite was also observed in short-term experiments leading to a need a deeper characterization of those samples. Long-term dissolution experiments, used to characterize the dissolution of any co-precipitants, found little Ca, Fe, and K content in field grown struvite. XRD and FTIR were used to identify any physical and chemical differences in field grown struvite samples which exhibited increased solubility compared to a reference struvite sample. Dittmarite (MgNH4PO4*H2O) and another unknown crystalline solid were found to potentially lead to enhanced solubility. The importance of characterizing plant specific struvite was noted when instances of enhanced solubility were seen in samples which exhibit distinct FTIR bands when comparing surface to internal spectra

From colorectal cancer pattern to the characterization of individuals at risk: Picture for genetic research in Latin America

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the highest rates reported for Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We provide a global snapshot of the CRC patterns, how screening is performed, and compared/contrasted to the genetic profile of Lynch syndrome (LS) in the region. From the literature, we find that only nine (20%) of the Latin America and the Caribbean countries have developed guidelines for early detection of CRC, and also with a low adherence. We describe a genetic profile of LS, including a total of 2,685 suspected families, where confirmed LS ranged from 8% in Uruguay and Argentina to 60% in Peru. Among confirmed LS, path_MLH1 variants were most commonly identified in Peru (82%), Mexico (80%), Chile (60%), and path_MSH2/EPCAM variants were most frequently identified in Colombia (80%) and Argentina (47%). Path_MSH6 and path_PMS2 variants were less common, but they showed important presence in Brazil (15%) and Chile (10%), respectively. Important differences exist at identifying LS families in Latin American countries, where the spectrum of path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 variants are those most frequently identified. Our findings have an impact on the evaluation of the patients and their relatives at risk for LS, derived from the gene affected. Although the awareness of hereditary cancer and genetic testing has improved in the last decade, it is remains deficient, with 39%–80% of the families not being identified for LS among those who actually met both the clinical criteria for LS and showed MMR deficiency.Fil: Vaccaro, Carlos Alberto. Hospital Italiano; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: López Kostner, Francisco. No especifíca;Fil: Adriana, Della Valle. Hospital Fuerzas Armadas; UruguayFil: Inez Palmero, Edenir. Hospital de cáncer de Barretos, FACISB; BrasilFil: Rossi, Benedito Mauro. Hospital Sirio Libanes; BrasilFil: Antelo, Marina. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Lanús; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Solano, Angela Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas; ArgentinaFil: Carraro, Dirce Maria. No especifíca;Fil: Forones, Nora Manoukian. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Bohorquez, Mabel. Universidad del Tolima; ColombiaFil: Lino Silva, Leonardo S.. Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia; MéxicoFil: Buleje, Jose. Universidad de San Martín de Porres; PerúFil: Spirandelli, Florencia. No especifíca;Fil: Abe Sandes, Kiyoko. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: Nascimento, Ivana. No especifíca;Fil: Sullcahuaman, Yasser. Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas; Perú. Instituto de Investigación Genomica; PerúFil: Sarroca, Carlos. Hospital Fuerzas Armadas; UruguayFil: Gonzalez, Maria Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica.- Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica; ArgentinaFil: Herrando, Alberto Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica.- Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica; ArgentinaFil: Alvarez, Karin. No especifíca;Fil: Neffa, Florencia. Hospital Fuerzas Armadas; UruguayFil: Galvão, Henrique Camposreis. Barretos Cancer Hospital; BrasilFil: Esperon, Patricia. Hospital Fuerzas Armadas; UruguayFil: Golubicki, Mariano. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: Cisterna, Daniel. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: Cardoso, Florencia C.. Centro de Educación Medica E Invest.clinicas; ArgentinaFil: Tardin Torrezan, Giovana. No especifíca;Fil: Aguiar Junior, Samuel. No especifíca;Fil: Aparecida Marques Pimenta, Célia. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Nirvana da Cruz Formiga, María. No especifíca;Fil: Santos, Erika. Hospital Sirio Libanes; BrasilFil: Sá, Caroline U.. Hospital Sirio Libanes; BrasilFil: Oliveira, Edite P.. Hospital Sirio Libanes; BrasilFil: Fujita, Ricardo. Universidad de San Martín de Porres; PerúFil: Spirandelli, Enrique. No especifíca;Fil: Jimenez, Geiner. No especifíca;Fil: Santa Cruz Guindalini, Rodrigo. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Gondim Meira Velame de Azevedo, Renata. No especifíca;Fil: Souza Mario Bueno, Larissa. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: dos Santos Nogueira, Sonia Tereza. No especifíca;Fil: Piñero, Tamara Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica.- Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional e Ingeniería Biomédica; Argentin

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Sarcoma European & Latin American Network (SELNET) recommendations on prioritization in sarcoma care during covid‐19 pandemic

Background COVID‐19 outbreak has resulted in collision between SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected patients and cancer patients on different fronts. Serious SARS‐CoV‐2 cases overwhelmed hospital capacity, especially in intensive care units, causing a domino effect, displacing areas from their primary use. Cancer patient has been impacted by deferral, modification or even cessation of therapy. Adaptive measures to minimize hospital exposure, following the precautionary principle have been proposed for cancer care during COVID‐19 era. We present here a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care. Material and methods A total of 125 recommendations were proposed in soft‐tissue, bone and visceral sarcoma care. Recommendations were assigned as higher‐ or lower‐priority if they cannot or can be postponed at least 2‐3 months, respectively. The consensus level for each recommendation was classified as “strongly recommended” (SR) if more than 90% of experts agreed, “recommended” (R) if 75‐90% of experts agreed and “no consensus” (NC) if fewer than 75% agreed. Sarcoma experts from 11 countries within the SELNET consortium participated, including countries in the Americas and Europe. The ESMO‐Magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied to systemic‐treatment recommendations to support prioritization. Results There were 80 SR, 35 R and 10 NC among the 125 recommendations issued and completed by 31 multidisciplinary sarcoma experts. The consensus was higher among the 75 higher‐priority recommendations (85%, 12% and 3% for SR, R and NC, respectively) than in the 50 lower‐priority recommendations (32%, 52% and 16% for SR, R and NC, respectively). Conclusion The consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high‐level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a tool for sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID‐19 outbreak. The details of different recommendations and the distinction between two priority levels enables a practical approach for both Latin‐American and other health‐care providers, and sarcoma expert centres. Implications for Practice SELNET consensus on sarcoma prioritization care during the COVID‐19 era, issued 125 pragmatical recommendations distributed as higher or lower priority, to protect critical decisions on sarcoma care during COVID‐19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary team from 11 countries, including countries in the Americas and Europe, reached consensus on 115 recommendations. The consensus was lower among lower‐priority recommendations, which shows reticence to postpone actions even in indolent tumors. The ESMO‐magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied as support for prioritizing systemic treatment. Consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high‐level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a practice tool for the guidance in the decisions of sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID‐19 outbreak.Peer reviewe