Optimisation Methodologies for the Design and Planning of Water Systems

This thesis addresses current topics of design and planning of water systems from water treatment units to a country-wide resources management schemes. The methodologies proposed are presented as models and solution approaches using mathematical programming, and mixed integer linear (MILP) and non-linear (MINLP) programming techniques. In Part I of the thesis, a synthesis problem for water treatment processes using superstructure optimisation is studied. An MINLP model is developed for the minimisation of water production cost considering physicochemical properties of water and operating conditions of candidate technologies. Next, new alternative path options are introduced to the superstructure. The resulting MINLP model is then partially linearised (plMINLP) and also presented as a mixed integer linear fractional programming (MILFP) model in order to improve the convergence of the optimisation model. Various linearisation and approximation techniques are developed. As a solution procedure to the fractional model, a variation of the Dinkelbach's algorithm is proposed. The models are tested on theoretical examples with industrial data. In Part II, an optimisation approach formulated as a spatially-explicit multi-period MILP model is proposed for the design of planning of water resources at regional and national scales. The optimisation framework encompasses decisions such as installation of new purification plants, capacity expansion, trading schemes among regions and pricing, and water availability under climate change. The objective is to meet water demand while minimising the total cost associated with developing and operating the water supply chain. Additionally, a fair trade-o between the total cost and reliability of the supply chain is incorporated in the model. The solution method is applied based on game theory using the concept of Nash equilibrium. The methodology is implemented on a case study based on Australian water management systems

Integration of environmental aspects in modelling and optimisation of water supply chains

Climate change becomes increasingly more relevant in the context of water systems planning. Tools are necessary to provide the most economic investment option considering the reliability of the infrastructure from technical and environmental perspectives. Accordingly, in this work, an optimisation approach, formulated as a spatially-explicit multi-period Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model, is proposed for the design of water supply chains at regional and national scales. The optimisation framework encompasses decisions such as installation of new purification plants, capacity expansion, and raw water trading schemes. The objective is to minimise the total cost incurring from capital and operating expenditures. Assessment of available resources for withdrawal is performed based on hydrological balances, governmental rules and sustainable limits. In the light of the increasing importance of reliability of water supply, a second objective, seeking to maximise the reliability of the supply chains, is introduced. The epsilon-constraint method is used as a solution procedure for the multi-objective formulation. Nash bargaining approach is applied to investigate the fair trade-offs between the two objectives and find the Pareto optimality. The models' capability is addressed through a case study based on Australia. The impact of variability in key input parameters is tackled through the implementation of a rigorous global sensitivity analysis (GSA). The findings suggest that variations in water demand can be more disruptive for the water supply chain than scenarios in which rainfalls are reduced. The frameworks can facilitate governmental multi-aspect decision making processes for the adequate and strategic investments of regional water supply infrastructure

Optimisation approaches for the synthesis of water treatment plants

Efficient water treatment design has progressively been growing in importance as the usage of water resources increases with population rise and industrial development. Their availability has been reduced with the more evident effects of climate change. Addressing this challenge necessitates more and efficient purification plants which can be realised by optimal design at conceptual stage. In this work, a mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) model for the synthesis and optimisation of water treatment processes is proposed. Due to its numerous non-linearities and consequently, its non-stability, various linearisation, approximation and reformulation techniques have been implemented. Consequently, two improved formulations are derived, i.e. a partially linearised MINLP (plMINLP) and a mixed integer linear fractional programming (MILFP) models. The applicability of the mathematical formulations are investigated in case studies of seawater desalination and surface water treatment for the production of potable water. Finally, the models performance is analysed and compared against each other

The epidemiology of chronic pain in Libya: a cross-sectional telephone survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a public health problem although there is a paucity of prevalence data from countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of chronic pain and neuropathic pain in a sample of the general adult population in Libya. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted before the onset of the Libyan Civil War (February 2011) on a sample of self-declared Libyans who had a landline telephone and were at least 18 years of age. Random sampling of household telephone number dialling was undertaken in three major cities and interviews conducted using an Arabic version of the Structured Telephone Interviews Questionnaire on Chronic Pain previously used to collect data in Europe. In addition, an Arabic version of S-LANSS was used. 1212 individuals were interviewed (response rate = 95.1 %, mean age = 37.8 ± 13.9 years, female = 54.6 %). RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic pain ≥ 3 months was 19.6 % (95 % CI 14.6 % to 24.6 %) with a mean ± SD duration of pain of 6 · 5 ± 5 · 7 years and a higher prevalence for women. The prevalence of neuropathic pain in the respondents reporting chronic pain was 19 · 7 % (95 % CI 14 · 6-24 · 7), equivalent to 3 · 9 % (95 % CI 2 · 8 to 5 · 0 %) of the general adult population. Only, 71 (29 · 8 %) of respondents reported that their pain was being adequately controlled. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chronic pain in the general adult population of Libya was approximately 20 % and comparable with Europe and North America. This suggests that chronic pain is a public health problem in Libya. Risk factors are being a woman, advanced age and unemployment. There is a need for improved health policies in Libya to ensure that patients with chronic pain receive effective management

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002)

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca