High-Pressure Methane Storage in Porous Materials: Are Carbon Materials in the Pole Position?

Natural gas storage on porous materials (ANG) is a promising alternative to conventional on-board compressed (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). To date, Metal–organic framework (MOF) materials have apparently been the only system published in the literature that is able to reach the new Department of Energy (DOE) value of 263 cm3 (STP: 273.15 K, 1 atm)/cm3; however, this value was obtained by using the ideal single-crystal density to calculate the volumetric capacity. Here, we prove experimentally, and for the first time, that properly designed activated carbon materials can really achieve the new DOE value while avoiding the additional drawback usually associated with MOF materials (i.e., the low mechanical stability under pressure (conforming), which is required for any practical application).

Error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position with a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM: To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and the prediction of the effective lens position (ELP). METHODS: Retrospective study including a total of 25 eyes of 13 patients (age, 50 to 83y) with previous cataract surgery with implantation of the Lentis Mplus LS-312 IOL (Oculentis GmbH, Germany). In all cases, an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) was calculated based on Gaussian optics using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for the estimation of the corneal power (Pkadj) and on a new value for ELP (ELPadj) obtained by multiple regression analysis. This PIOLadj was compared with the IOL power implanted (PIOLReal) and the value proposed by three conventional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q and Holladay). RESULTS: PIOLReal was not significantly different than PIOLadj and Holladay IOL power (P>0.05). In the Bland and Altman analysis, PIOLadj showed lower mean difference (-0.07 D) and limits of agreement (of 1.47 and -1.61 D) when compared to PIOLReal than the IOL power value obtained with the Holladay formula. Furthermore, ELPadj was significantly lower than ELP calculated with other conventional formulas (P<0.01) and was found to be dependent on axial length, anterior chamber depth and Pkadj. CONCLUSION: Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the multifocal IOL Lentis Mplus LS-312 can be optimized by minimizing the keratometric error and by estimating ELP using a mathematical expression dependent on anatomical factors.

Positional accommodative intraocular lens power error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position

Purpose: To evaluate the predictability of the refractive correction achieved with a positional accommodating intraocular lenses (IOL) and to develop a potential optimization of it by minimizing the error associated with the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and by developing a predictive formula for the effective lens position (ELP). Materials and Methods: Clinical data from 25 eyes of 14 patients (age range, 52–77 years) and undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD (Bausch and Lomb) were retrospectively reviewed. In all cases, the calculation of an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) based on Gaussian optics considering the residual refractive error was done using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for corneal power estimation with and without using an estimation algorithm for ELP obtained by multiple regression analysis (ELPadj). PIOLadj was compared to the real IOL power implanted (PIOLReal, calculated with the SRK-T formula) and also to the values estimated by the Haigis, HofferQ, and Holladay I formulas. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between PIOLReal and PIOLadj when ELPadj was used (P = 0.10), with a range of agreement between calculations of 1.23 D. In contrast, PIOLReal was significantly higher when compared to PIOLadj without using ELPadj and also compared to the values estimated by the other formulas. Conclusions: Predictable refractive outcomes can be obtained with the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD using a variable keratometric index for corneal power estimation and by estimating ELP with an algorithm dependent on anatomical factors and age.