University of Lorraine

About: University of Lorraine is a education organization based out in Nancy, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 11942 authors who have published 25010 publications receiving 425227 citations. The organization is also known as: Lorraine University.

Control of High-Energy High-Power Densities Storage Devices by Li-ion Battery and Supercapacitor for Fuel Cell/Photovoltaic Hybrid Power Plant for Autonomous System Applications

Abstract: This study presents an energy management approach for a hybrid energy system comprised of a photovoltaic (PV) array and a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). Two storage devices [a Li-ion battery module and a supercapacitor (SC) bank] are used in the proposed structure as a high-energy high-power density storage device. Multisegment converters for the PV, fuel cell (FC), battery, and SC are proposed for grid-independent applications. Nonlinear differential flatness-based fuzzy logic control for dc-bus voltage stabilization for power plant is investigated. To validate the control approach, a hardware system is realized with analog circuits for the PV, FC, battery, and SC current control loops (inner controller loops), and with numerical calculation (dSPACE) for the external energy control loop. Experimental results with small-scale devices [a PV array (800 W, 31 A), a PEMFC (1200 W, 46 A), a Li-ion battery module (11.6 Ah, 24 V), and an SC bank (100 F, 32 V)] demonstrate the excellent energy-management scheme during load cycles.

In Vitro Synergy of Colistin Combinations against Colistin-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates

Abstract: Colistin resistance, although uncommon, is increasingly being reported among Gram-negative clinical pathogens, and an understanding of its impact on the activity of antimicrobials is now evolving. We evaluated the potential for synergy of colistin plus trimethoprim, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1/19 ratio), or vancomycin against 12 isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 4), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 4), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 4). The strains included six multidrug-resistant clinical isolates, K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603, A. baumannii ATCC 19606, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and their colistin-resistant derivatives (KPm1, ABm1, and PAm1, respectively). Antimicrobial susceptibilities were assessed by broth microdilution and population analysis profiles. The potential for synergy of colistin combinations was evaluated using a checkerboard assay, as well as static time-kill experiments at 0.5× and 0.25× MIC. The MIC ranges of vancomycin, trimethoprim, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1/19) were ≥128, 4 to ≥128, and 2/38 to >128/2,432 μg/ml, respectively. Colistin resistance demonstrated little impact on vancomycin, trimethoprim, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole MIC values. Isolates with subpopulations heterogeneously resistant to colistin were observed to various degrees in all tested isolates. In time-kill assays, all tested combinations were synergistic against KPm1 at 0.25× MIC and 0.5× MIC and ABm1 and PAm1 at 0.5× MIC. In contrast, none of the tested combinations demonstrated synergy against any colistin-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates and clinical strains of K. pneumoniae isolates. Only colistin plus trimethoprim or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was synergistic and bactericidal at 0.5× MIC against K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603. Colistin resistance seems to promote the in vitro activity of unconventional colistin combinations. Additional experiments are warranted to understand the clinical significance of these observations.

Variation in population levels of physical activity in European adults according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

Abstract: Background: Sedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as a public health risk that needs to be monitored at the population level. Across Europe, there is increasing interest in assessing population levels of sedentary time. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of all existing cross-European studies that measure sedentary time in adults, to describe the variation in population levels across these studies and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. Methods: Six literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey) were searched, supplemented with backward- and forward tracking and searching authors' and experts' literature databases. Articles were included if they reported on observational studies measuring any form of sedentary time in the general population in two or more European countries. Each record was reviewed, extracted and assessed by two independent researchers, and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42014010335. Results: Of the 9,756 unique articles that were identified in the search, twelve articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, reporting on six individual studies and three Eurobarometer surveys. These studies represented 2 to 29 countries, and 321 to 65,790 participants. Eleven studies focused on total sedentary time, while one studied screen time. The majority of studies used questionnaires to assess sedentary time, while two studies used accelerometers. Total sedentary time was reported most frequently and varied from 150 (median) to 620 (mean) minutes per day across studies and countries. Conslusions: One third of European countries were not included in any of the studies. Objective measures of European adults are currently limited, and most studies used single-item self-reported questions without assessing sedentary behaviour types or domains. Findings varied substantially between studies, meaning that population levels of sedentary time in European adults are currently unknown. In general, people living in northern Europe countries appear to report more sedentary time than southern Europeans. The findings of this review highlight the need for standardisation of the measurement methods and the added value of cross-European surveillance of sedentary behaviour.