| 1. |
- Smith, P., et al.
(författare)
-
How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley. - 1365-2486 .- 1354-1013. ; 19:8, s. 2285-2302
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Feeding 9-10billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1)) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1) at carbon prices between 20 and 100US$ tCO(2)-eq. yr(-1)), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.
|
|
| 2. |
- Petzold, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Neurofilament ELISA validation
- 2010
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS. - 0022-1759. ; 352:1-2, s. 23-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 3. |
- Petzold, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Neurofilament ELISA validation
- 2010
-
Ingår i: JIM - Journal of Immunological Methods. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-1759 .- 1872-7905. ; 352:1-2, s. 23-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Neurofilament proteins (Nf) are highly specific biomarkers for neuronal death and axonal degeneration. As these markers become more widely used, an inter-laboratory validation study is required to identify assay criteria for high quality performance. METHODS: The UmanDiagnostics NF-light (R)enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (ELISA) for the neurofilament light chain (NfL, 68kDa) was used to test the intra-assay and inter-laboratory coefficient of variation (CV) between 35 laboratories worldwide on 15 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. Critical factors, such as sample transport and storage, analytical delays, reaction temperature and time, the laboratories' accuracy and preparation of standards were documented and used for the statistical analyses. RESULTS: The intra-laboratory CV averaged 3.3% and the inter-laboratory CV 59%. The results from the test laboratories correlated with those from the reference laboratory (R=0.60, p<0.0001). Correcting for critical factors improved the strength of the correlation. Differences in the accuracy of standard preparation were identified as the most critical factor. Correcting for the error introduced by variation in the protein standards improved the correlation to R=0.98, p<0.0001 with an averaged inter-laboratory CV of 14%. The corrected overall inter-rater agreement was subtantial (0.6) according to Fleiss' multi-rater kappa and Gwet's AC1 statistics. CONCLUSION: This multi-center validation study identified the lack of preparation of accurate and consistent protein standards as the main reason for a poor inter-laboratory CV. This issue is also relevant to other protein biomarkers based on this type of assay and will need to be solved in order to achieve an acceptable level of analytical accuracy. The raw data of this study is available online.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
