Deactivation of Oxidation Catalysts by Oil-Derived Sulphur

The most common mode of deactivation suffered by catalysts fitted to two-stroke engines has traditionally been thermal degradation, or even meltdown, of the washcoat and substrate. The high temperatures experienced by these catalysts are caused by excessively high concentrations of HC and CO in the exhaust gas which are, in turn, caused by a rich AFR and the loss of neat fuel to the exhaust during the scavenging period. The effects of catalyst poisoning due to additives in the oil is often regarded as a secondary, or even negligible, deactivating mechanism in two-stroke catalysts and has therefore received little attention. However, with the introduction of direct in-cylinder fuel injection to some larger versions of this engine, the quantities of HC escaping to the exhaust can be reduced to levels similar to those found on four-stroke gasoline engines. Under these conditions, the effects of poisoning are much more significant to catalyst durability, particularly for crankcase scavenged derivatives which allow considerable quantities of oil to escape into the exhaust in a neat, or partially burned form. In this paper the effects of oil-derived sulphur on catalyst performance are examined using specialised test apparatus. The oil used throughout the study was formulated specifically for a two-stroke engine fitted with direct in-cylinder fuel injection. The sulphur content of this oil was 0.21% by mass and particular attention was paid to the role of this element in the resulting deactivation. The catalyst was also designed for two-stroke applications and contained a high palladium loading of 300g/ft3 (28g/l) to prolong the life of the catalyst. It was found that the sulphur caused permanent deactivation of the CO reaction and increased the light-off temperature by around 40oC after oiling for 60 hours. This deactivation was progressive and led to a reduction in surface area of the washcoat, particularly in the micropores of around 5Å diameter. By using a validated catalyst model the change in surface area of the precious metal was estimated. It was found that the simulated palladium surface area had to be reduced by a factor of around 7.5 to produce the light-off temperature of the deactivated catalyst. Conversely, the light-off temperature of the C3H6 reaction was barely affected by the deactivation.

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.