RESUMEN
Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA) near Hermiston, Oregon was the location of the first production-level bioremediation of explosives-contaminated soil in the U.S. Soil from munitions washout lagoons contained high concentrations of TNT (2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene) and RDX (Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- triazine) as well as HMX (Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine). In addition to these primary contaminants, laboratory tests were performed for Tetryl (Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine), 4-Am-DNT (4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene), 2-Am-DNT (2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene), 2,4 DNT (2,4-Dinitrotoluene), 2,6 DNT (2,6-Dinitrotoluene), 1,3,5-TNB (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene), 1,3,-DNB (1,3-Dinitrobenzene) and NB (Nitrobenzene) during the pilot-scale treatability tests. The clean-up goal established by the Record of Decision (ROD) was 30 mg/kg each for TNT and RDX. Degradation progress was monitored using immunoassay field screening Methods SW 846,4050 and 4051. Confirmational analysis consisted of EPA Method 8330. Treatment time on a 2,700 cubic yard batch (810 cubic yards of soil) was 10-12 days. A composting technique developed by the Army Environmental Center and implemented by Bioremediation Service, Inc., Portland, Oregon was used at the site. Agricultural waste products (or amendments including cow manure, chicken manure, potato waste, sawdust and alfalfa) were blended with the contaminated soil during treatment. Specialized soil turning equipment mixed the compost for optimum biological action and homogeneity. Homogeneity of the compost mix ensured rapid degradation of all contaminants. Physical and chemical properties were closely monitored to ensure that thermophilic bacteria played a dominant role in the degradation process. Nearly 5,000 cubic yards of soil have been successfully treated, and more than 70% of all analyses indicate non-detectable levels of both TNT and RDX. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that over $2.6 million is being saved using bioremediation at Umatilla.
Asunto(s)
Biodegradación Ambiental , Residuos Peligrosos , Contaminantes del Suelo/metabolismo , Contaminantes Químicos del Agua/metabolismo , Azocinas/metabolismo , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Compuestos Heterocíclicos con 1 Anillo/metabolismo , Nitrocompuestos/metabolismo , Plantas/metabolismo , Triazinas/metabolismo , Trinitrotolueno/metabolismoRESUMEN
A 5-min qualitative membrane enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA) from Remel (Mycoplasma pneumoniae immunoglobulin G (IgG)/IgM Antibody Test System) was evaluated for its ability to detect IgM and IgG at levels indicating active or recent infection. Specimens from 131 patients were evaluated using an immunofluorescent antibody assay (IFA) to determine IgG and IgM titers and the membrane EIA. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) performed by a reference laboratory was used for discrepancy resolution. There were 34 IgM positive specimens (titer > or = 1:16), 19 IgG positive specimens (titer > or = 1:64), and 78 negative specimens. Compared with IFA and/or ELISA, the membrane EIA was 97% sensitive for the detection of IgM and 79% sensitive for the detection of IgG. Of the 78 specimens called negative, 17 specimens had IgG titers< or = 1:32) or an ELISA result indicating prior exposure, and the membrane EIA called seven of 17 (41%) positive. For the detection of both IgG and IgM, the membrane EIA had a sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 91%, and positive and negative predictive values of 87 and 93%, respectively. The Remel membrane EIA is a rapid and reliable assay for the diagnosis of active or recent M. pneumoniae respiratory tract infections.
Asunto(s)
Ensayo de Inmunoadsorción Enzimática/métodos , Neumonía por Mycoplasma/diagnóstico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anticuerpos Antibacterianos/análisis , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios de Evaluación como Asunto , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina G/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina M/inmunología , Factor Reumatoide/inmunología , Pruebas Serológicas/métodosRESUMEN
PIP: With the skyrocketing costs of modern health care, many health policy planners turn to cost effective analysis (CEA) or cost benefit analysis (CBA) to get quantitative answers for appropriateness of health procedures. This article analyzes how well approaches like CEA or CBA handle the hidden ethical judgements for such problems as: alternative treatments for an identical goal, the most effective utilization of funds earmarked for a particular goal, empirical support for the adoption of previously underfunded medical programs, and exposing noncostworthy care. Areas of analysis that involve human capital methodologies, whereby human value is often defined by economic worth, was shown to discriminate against low wage earners. The quandary of how to determine the value of human life and health is an essential problem but is certainly not straight forward. A particular criticism of CEA where there exist ethical shortcomings is the analysis of health care for the elderly (e.g. the elderly have a worse expenditure of dollars for lifespan extension). If CEA or CBA is applied in an appropriate manner, CEA can encompass many of our democratic society's values, and therefore philosophers, historians, and students of the humanities are encouraged to provide input in this domain of analysts and economics.^ieng