Tensioactive properties of rhamnolipids produced by a Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain were investigated in the presence or absence of Sr(2+) or Pb(2+). Surface and interfacial properties, and aggregate forming properties and morphologies were studied by various techniques including scanning electron microscopy. When the pH of a rhamnolipid aqueous solution (40 mg/l) was increased from 5 to 8, irregular vesicles gradually took the shape of oligo-vesicles, then regular vesicles and finally smaller spherical vesicles. Addition of metal ions controlled the aggregates' morphology and stability, and influenced the surface and interfacial behavior of rhamnolipid solutions.
A 3-year study evaluated the effect of different seed-priming techniques on the performance of two bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars, Seher-2006 and Shafaq-2006, planted in rows spaced at 22.5 or 30 cm. Three seed priming techniques—on-farm priming, hydropriming, and osmopriming (using CaCl2)—and an untreated control (dry seeds) were included in the study. Seed priming resulted in earlier and more uniform crop emergence and improved allometric and yield-related traits compared with untreated seeds. Hydropriming and osmopriming significantly improved the allometric traits of Seher-2006 planted at 22.5-cm row spacing and Shafaq-2006 planted at 30-cm row spacing each year. The combination of osmopriming and 30-cm row spacing produced the highest number of productive tillers, number of grains per spike and 1000-grain weight across all experimental years. The highest grain yield and harvest index were recorded for osmopriming and 22.5-cm row spacing each year. Shafaq-2006 produced higher biological yield, whereas Seher-2006 produced the higher grain yield and harvest index. Osmoprimed seeds planted at 22.5-cm row spacing recorded the highest economic returns and benefit:cost ratios in both cultivars. In conclusion, planting osmoprimed seeds of wheat in 22.5-cm spaced rows could be effectively used to increase productivity and economic returns.
Introduction:
Favorable outcomes with continuous flow devices (CFD) have enticed clinicians to implant CFD in patients smaller than the suggested body surface area (BSA) criteria of >1.5 m
2
. Despite limited data, the VAD community is using CFD in patients down to a BSA of 0.7m
2
. For this reason, we sought to examine the use of CFD in adults with BSA ≤1.5 m
2
and compare outcomes to adult patients with BSA >1.5m
2
.
Methods:
CFD implants in adults (>18 years) from 04/2008 to 09/2014 were identified using the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on BSA. Patient characteristics and post implant outcomes including mortality, transplant, and adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.
Results:
Of adults (11142) undergoing CFD implants 2% (239) had BSA of ≤1.5m
2
; BSA median 1.4m
2
[0.76 – 1.5 m
2
]. One patient had BSA <1.0m
2
, 6% (15) 1.0-1.2m
2
and 93% (223) >1.2-1.5m
2
. Pre-implant patient characteristics were similar between the two groups except gender and INTERMACS profile [Table]. Overall survival (p=0.8) and favorable outcomes at 1-year were similar between the two groups; however, fewer patients with BSA ≤1.5m
2
were transplanted (p<0.01) [Figure]. There were more bleeding events and infection; however, less renal dysfunction and right heart failure in patients with BSA ≤1.5m
2
[Table].
Conclusion:
CFDs can be safely used in smaller adult patients. The outcomes are favorable but clinicians must be mindful that the adverse event profile is different in smaller patients. These results are reassuring for the recent trend in the VAD community for placing CFDs in smaller patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.