Transmittance properties of contact lens multipurpose solutions and their effects on a hydrogel lens

Purpose The aim was to assess the compatibility of different multipurpose solutions (MPSs) with one type of silicone hydrogel (SiH) contact lens by, assessing the changes in both ultraviolet (UV) and visible light transmissibility of the hydrogel lens caused by the MPSs. Methods The light transmittance from 200-700 nm were measured for the lotrafilcon B blister pack solution (BPS), six MPSs namely, ReNuMultiPlus Multi-Purpose Solution (Bausch and Lomb Inc., Rochester NY, USA.); Complete RevitaLens Multi-Purpose (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Quarryvale Co. Dublin, Ireland); All In One Light (Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Twickenham, England); SOLO-care AQUA™ (Ciba Vision Corporation Duluth, Georgia, USA.); Biomedics All-in-one solution (CooperVision, Hamble, UK); and HippiaMultiPlus All-in-one solution (Interojo Inc., Kyeonggi-do, Korea), and a lotrafilcon B SiH lens (before and after storage), using a spectrophotometer. Results The UV transmitted through the BPS and the MPS were similar (p >.05, for all), except for the HippiaMultiPlus which was lower (p < 0.001) by 19.8%. Mean transparency values were statistically (p<.001) significantly different between the BPS and the MPSs. All MP solution/SiH lens combinations resulted in relatively high UV transmittance values especially in the UVC spectrum, and significantly increased (p <.001) the visible light transmittance values of the SiH lens. Greater changes in transparency were observed in the ReNu/SiH lens (28.5%) and the Complete RevitaLens/SiH lens (24.9%) combinations. Conclusion The six MPSs showed significant variations in the transmitted UV and visible light. Similar to the BPS, all MPSs were equally transparent, but showed very poor UVA & UVB attenuation, except for the Hippia MultiPlus. The MPS/SiH lens combinations did not significantly affect the lens transparency but it significant increased the lens transmittance of UV radiation, after storage. Further in-vivo studies are needed to validate if this effect is constant.

"I take care of my own" : a field study on how leadership handles conflict between individual and collective incentives

From the early literature on the role of firm managers (Alchian and Demsetz 1972) to the industrial organisation on contracts and mechanism design (Laont and Martimort 2009), economists have given a lot of attention to find solutions to the imperfect alignment between individuals' incentives and an organisation's collective goals (Prendergast 1999). In that literature a key role of managers is to monitor individuals to reward behaviour aligned with the collective goals and reduce sub- optimal behaviour, such as shirking. How- ever, another strand of literature, since Akerlof (1982), has put forward a vision of reciprocal behaviour between an organisation's leadership and its members: gifts (high wages, recognition) from the organisation are reciprocated by high effort from the members of the organisation. By rewarding individual members (rather than strictly monitoring them), organisations may benefit from greater effort and cohesion. Experimental research in organizational economics has provided mixed results suggesting that agents do react to personal incentives but also that reciprocal behaviour can play a substantial role (Camerer and Weber 2012).

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Money is often a limiting factor in conservation, and attempting to conserve endangered species can be costly. Consequently, a framework for optimizing fiscally constrained conservation decisions for a single species is needed. In this paper we find the optimal budget allocation among isolated subpopulations of a threatened species to minimize local extinction probability. We solve the problem using stochastic dynamic programming, derive a useful and simple alternative guideline for allocating funds, and test its performance using forward simulation. The model considers subpopulations that persist in habitat patches of differing quality, which in our model is reflected in different relationships between money invested and extinction risk. We discover that, in most cases, subpopulations that are less efficient to manage should receive more money than those that are more efficient to manage, due to higher investment needed to reduce extinction risk. Our simple investment guideline performs almost as well as the exact optimal strategy. We illustrate our approach with a case study of the management of the Sumatran tiger, Panthera tigris sumatrae, in Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP), Indonesia. We find that different budgets should be allocated to the separate tiger subpopulations in KSNP. The subpopulation that is not at risk of extinction does not require any management investment. Based on the combination of risks of extinction and habitat quality, the optimal allocation for these particular tiger subpopulations is an unusual case: subpopulations that occur in higher-quality habitat (more efficient to manage) should receive more funds than the remaining subpopulation that is in lower-quality habitat. Because the yearly budget allocated to the KSNP for tiger conservation is small, to guarantee the persistence of all the subpopulations that are currently under threat we need to prioritize those that are easier to save. When allocating resources among subpopulations of a threatened species, the combined effects of differences in habitat quality, cost of action, and current subpopulation probability of extinction need to be integrated. We provide a useful guideline for allocating resources among isolated subpopulations of any threatened species. © 2010 by the Ecological Society of America.