What does built environment research have to do with risk mitigation, resilience and disaster recovery?

One could argue that the nature of our housing stock is a key determining factor in the ability of our citizens to manage risk, be resilient to various natural and human events, and to recover from these events. Recent research has been examining current challenges posed by our housing stock and exploring potential solutions from a range of perspectives. The aim of this paper is to discuss key findings from recent built environment research in Australia to initiate cross-sectorial discussion and debate about the implications and opportunities for other sectors such as emergency management and insurance. Three recent building research projects are discussed: - Heat waves The impact of heat waves on houses and occupants, and proposed changes to building regulations, air conditioning standards and building design, to reduce risks associated with heat waves. - Net zero energy homes Exploration of the potential benefits of a strategic optimization of building quality, energy and water efficiency, and household or community level distributed energy and water services for disaster management and recovery. - Building information Mapping of the flow of information about residential buildings, and the potential for national or regional building files (in a similar manner to personal medical records) to assist all parties to make more informed decisions that impact on housing sustainability and community resilience. The paper discusses how sustainability, environmental performance and resilience are inter-related, and can be supported by building files. It concludes with a call for increased cross-sectorial collaboration to explore opportunities for a whole-of-systems approach to our built environment that addresses a range of economic and environmental challenges as well as disaster and emergency management.

Worldwide outdoor round robin study of organic photovoltaic devices and modules

Accurate characterization and reporting of organic photovoltaic (OPV) device performance remains one of the important challenges in the field. The large spread among the efficiencies of devices with the same structure reported by different groups is significantly caused by different procedures and equipment used during testing. The presented article addresses this issue by offering a new method of device testing using “suitcase sample” approach combined with outdoor testing that limits the diversity of the equipment, and a strict measurement protocol. A round robin outdoor characterization of roll-to-roll coated OPV cells and modules conducted among 46 laboratories worldwide is presented, where the samples and the testing equipment were integrated in a compact suitcase that served both as a sample transportation tool and as a holder and test equipment during testing. In addition, an internet based coordination was used via plasticphotovoltaics.org that allowed fast and efficient communication among participants and provided a controlled reporting format for the results that eased the analysis of the data. The reported deviations among the laboratories were limited to 5% when compared to the Si reference device integrated in the suitcase and were up to 8% when calculated using the local irradiance data. Therefore, this method offers a fast, cheap and efficient tool for sample sharing and testing that allows conducting outdoor measurements of OPV devices in a reproducible manner.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.