“
“This research work investigated the bioconcentration of tebuconazole [(+/-)-alpha-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl]-alpha-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol]

buy QNZ fungicide in zebrafish (Danio rerio) under laboratory conditions and a first-order kinetic pesticide dissipation in the water. The concentrations of tebuconazole fitted to an equivalent nonlinear kinetic type model which allowed the calculation of the following parameters: bioconcentration factor (38.80 L kg-1), time to reach maximum fish concentration (6 days), maximum concentration in fish (0.0075 mu g mg-1), half-life in fish (24 days) and time needed for the fish to eliminate 95% of the maximum concentration (105 days). These calculations permitted the establishment of theoretical reference limit values for human consumption of fish

and the establishment of safe limits for the water pesticide concentration. The data would also be useful in safe strategies associated JNK-IN-8 with fishery activities that are conducted in aquatic regions close to crops using tebuconazole. The information will contribute to enlarge the tebuconazole toxicokinetics database of aquatic organisms. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Environ Toxicol, 2012.”
“Background: Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) are increasingly chosen by investigators and sponsors of clinical research instead of the traditional pen-and-paper data collection (pCRFs). Previous studies suggested that eCRFs avoided mistakes, shortened the duration of clinical studies and reduced data collection costs.

Methods: Our objectives were to describe and contrast both objective and subjective efficiency of pCRF and eCRF use in clinical studies. A total of 27 studies (11 eCRF, 16 pCRF) sponsored by the Paris hospital consortium, conducted and completed between 2001 and 2011 were included. Questionnaires were emailed to investigators of those studies, as well as clinical research associates and data managers working in Paris

hospitals, soliciting their level of satisfaction and preferences for eCRFs and pCRFs. Mean costs and timeframes were compared using bootstrap methods, linear and logistic regression.

Results: The total cost per patient was 374(sic) +/- 351 click here with eCRFs vs. 1,135(sic) +/- 1,234 with pCRFs. Time between the opening of the first center and the database lock was 31.7 months Q1 = 24.6; Q3 = 42.8 using eCRFs, vs. 39.8 months Q1 = 31.7; Q3 = 52.2 with pCRFs (p = 0.11). Electronic CRFs were globally preferred by all (31/72 vs. 15/72 for paper) for easier monitoring and improved data quality.

Conclusions: This study found that eCRFs and pCRFs are used in studies with different patient numbers, center numbers and risk. The first ones are more advantageous in large, low-risk studies and gain support from a majority of stakeholders.