Voltammetry of oxygen in the room-temperature ionic liquids 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)imide and hexyltriethylammonium bis((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)imide: One-electron reduction to form superoxide. Steady-state and transient behavior in the same cyclic voltammogram resulting from widely different diffusion coefficients of oxygen and superoxide

The electrochemical reduction of oxygen in two different room-temperature ionic liquids, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][N(Tf)(2)]) and hexyltriethylammonium bis((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)imide ([N-6222][N(Tf)(2)]) was investigated by cyclic voltammetry at a gold microdisk electrode. Chronoamperometric measurements were made to determine the diffusion coefficient, D, and concentration, c, of the electroactive oxygen dissolved in the ionic liquid by fitting experimental transients to the Aoki model. [Aoki, K.; et al. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1981, 122, 19]. A theory and simulation designed for cyclic voltammetry at microdisk electrodes was then employed to determine the diffusion coefficient of the electrogenerated superoxide species, O-2(.-), as well as compute theoretical voltammograms to confirm the values of D and c for neutral oxygen obtained from the transients. As expected, the diffusion coefficient of the superoxide species was found to be smaller than that of the oxygen in both ionic liquids. The diffusion coefficients of O-2 and O-2(.-) in [N-6222][N(Tf)(2)], however, differ by more than a factor of 30 (D-O2 = 1.48 x 10(-10) m(2) s(-1), DO2.- = 4.66 x 10(-12) m(2) s(-1)), whereas they fall within the same order of magnitude in [EMIM][N(Tf)(2)] (D-O2 = 7.3 x 10(-10) m(2) s(-1), DO2.- = 2.7 x 10(-10) m(2) s(-1)). This difference in [N-6222][N(Tf)(2)] causes pronounced asymmetry in the concentration distributions of oxygen and superoxide, resulting in significant differences in the heights of the forward and back peaks in the cyclic voltammograms for the reduction of oxygen. This observation is most likely a result of the higher viscosity of [N-6222][N(Tf)(2)] in comparison to [EMIM][N(Tf)(2)], due to the structural differences in cationic component.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.