Use of hydrotalcites for the removal of toxic anions from aqueous solutions

The removal of toxic anions has been achieved using hydrotalcite via two methods: (1) coprecipitation and (2) thermal activation. Hydrotalcite formed via the coprecipitation method, using solutions containing arsenate and vanadate up to pH 10, are able to remove more than 95% of the toxic anions (0.2 M) from solution. The removal of toxic anions in solutions with a pH of >10 reduces the removal uptake percentage to 75%. Raman spectroscopy observed multiple A1 stretching modes of V−O and As−O at 930 and 810 cm−1, assigned to vanadate and arsenate, respectively. Analysis of the intensity and position of the A1 stretching modes helped to identify the vanadate and arsenate specie intercalated into the hydrotalcite structure. It has been determined that 3:1 hydrotalcite structure predominantly intercalate anions into the interlayer region, while the 2:1 and 4:1 hydrotalcite structures shows a large portion of anions being removed from solution by adsorption processes. Treatment of carbonate solutions (0.2 M) containing arsenate and vanadate (0.2 M) three times with thermally activated hydrotalcite has been shown to remove 76% and 81% of the toxic anions, respectively. Thermally activated hydrotalcite with a Mg:Al ratio of 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 have all been shown to remove 95% of arsenate and vanadate (25 ppm). At increased concentrations of arsenate and vanadate, the removal uptake percentage decreased significantly, except for the 4:1 thermally activated hydrotalcite. Thermally activated Bayer hydrotalcite has also been shown to be highly effective in the removal of arsenate and vanadate. The thermal activation of the solid residue component (red mud) removes 30% of anions from solution (100 ppm of both anions), while seawater-neutralized red mud removes 70%. The formation of hydrotalcite during the seawater neutralization process removes anions via two mechanisms, rather than one observed for thermally activated red mud.

Use of expert panels in highway safety: A critique

Expert panels have been used extensively in the development of the "Highway Safety Manual" to extract research information from highway safety experts. While the panels have been used to recommend agendas for new and continuing research, their primary role has been to develop accident modification factors—quantitative relationships between highway safety and various highway safety treatments. Because the expert panels derive quantitative information in a “qualitative” environment and because their findings can have significant impacts on highway safety investment decisions, the expert panel process should be described and critiqued. This paper is the first known written description and critique of the expert panel process and is intended to serve professionals wishing to conduct such panels.

The use of economic evaluation in CAM : an introductory framework

Background For CAM to feature prominently in health care decision-making there is a need to expand the evidence-base and to further incorporate economic evaluation into research priorities. In a world of scarce health care resources and an emphasis on efficiency and clinical efficacy, CAM, as indeed do all other treatments, requires rigorous evaluation to be considered in budget decision-making. Methods Economic evaluation provides the tools to measure the costs and health consequences of CAM interventions and thereby inform decision making. This article offers CAM researchers an introductory framework for understanding, undertaking and disseminating economic evaluation. The types of economic evaluation available for the study of CAM are discussed, and decision modelling is introduced as a method for economic evaluation with much potential for use in CAM. Two types of decision models are introduced, decision trees and Markov models, along with a worked example of how each method is used to examine costs and health consequences. This is followed by a discussion of how this information is used by decision makers. Conclusions Undoubtedly, economic evaluation methods form an important part of health care decision making. Without formal training it can seem a daunting task to consider economic evaluation, however, multidisciplinary teams provide an opportunity for health economists, CAM practitioners and other interested researchers, to work together to further develop the economic evaluation of CAM.

Use of lifts and refuge floors for fire evacuation in high rise apartment buildings

If current population and accommodation trends continue, Australian cities will, in the future, have noticeable numbers of apartment buildings over 60 storeys high. With an aging population it follows that a significant proportion of those occupying these buildings will be senior citizens, many of whom will have some form of disability. For these occupants a fire emergency in a high rise building presents a serious problem. Currently lifts cannot be used for evacuation and going down 60 storeys in a fire isolated staircase would be physically impossible for many. Therefore, for many, the temptation to remain in one’s unit will be very strong. With an awareness of this behaviour trend in older residents, many researchers have, in recent years, explored the possible wider use of lifts in a fire emergency. So far the use of lifts for evacuation has been approved for a small number of buildings but wide acceptance of this solution is still to be achieved. This paper concludes that even in high-rise apartment buildings where lifts are approved for evacuation, architects should design the building with alternative evacuation routes and provide suitable safe refuge areas for those who cannot use the stairs when the lifts are unavailable.