We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Tiafenacil is a new nonselective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPO)–inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat. Early-season corn emergence and growth often coincides in the mid-South with preplant herbicide application in cotton and soybean, thereby increasing opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted in 2022 to identify the impacts of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha–1) applied to two- or four-leaf corn. Corn injury 1 wk after treatment (WAT) for the two- and four-leaf growth stages ranged from 31% to 6% and 37% to 9%, respectively, whereas at 2 WAT these respective ranges were 21.7% to 4% and 22.5% to 7.2%. By 4 WAT, visible injury following the two- and four-leaf exposure timing was no greater than 8% in all instances except the highest tiafenacil rate applied at the four-leaf growth stage (13%). Tiafenacil had no negative season-long impact, as the early-season injury observed was not manifested in a reduction in corn height 2 WAT or yield. Application of tiafenacil directly adjacent to corn in early vegetative stages of growth should be avoided. In cases where off-target movement does occur, however, affected corn should be expected to fully recover with no impact on growth and yield, assuming adequate growing conditions and agronomic/pest management practices are provided.
Tiafenacil is a new non-selective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Early-season soybean emergence and growth often coincide in the U.S. Midsouth with preplant herbicide application in later-planted cotton and soybean, thereby increasing opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted in 2022 to identify any deleterious impacts of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha−1) applied to 1- to 2-leaf soybean. Visual injury at 1 wk after treatment (WAT) with 1/8×, 1/16×, 1/32×, and 1/64× rate of tiafenacil was 80%, 61%, 39%, and 21%, while at 4 WAT, these respective rates resulted in visual injury of 67%, 33%, 14%, and 4%. Tiafenacil at these respective rates reduced soybean height 55% to 2% and 53% to 5% at 1 and 4 WAT and soybean yield 53%, 24%, 5%, and 1%. Application of tiafenacil directly adjacent to soybean in early vegetative growth should be avoided, as severe visual injury will occur. In cases where off-target movement does occur, impacted soybean should not be expected to fully recover, and negative impact on growth and yield will be observed.
Immediate-use steam sterilization (IUSS) shortens the time of sterilization but may increase the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Among 23,919 procedures with 416 (1.7%) procedures resulting in SSI, IUSS was associated with a 1.52 (95% CI, 1.10–2.11) times higher risk of SSI. IUSS should be minimized.
Background: Immediate use steam sterilization (IUSS) shortens the time from sterilization to the aseptic transfer onto the surgical sterile field. Published data incompletely defines the extent to which IUSS increases risk of surgical site infection (SSI), compared to standard sterile reprocessing methods. We aimed to measure the association between IUSS use for surgical instrument reprocessing and SSI risk in a facility where IUSS use increased due to staffing constraints and case volumes. Methods: In this retrospective observational study at a tertiary care hospital with a diverse mix of surgery types, we used sterile reprocessing logs and SSI outcomes defined using National Health and Safety Network definitions to compare SSI rates among surgeries using surgical devices sterilized using IUSS compared to standard terminal sterilization methods. We calculated a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI), including stratification by eleven high-volume service lines. Results: Among 23,919 surgical procedures, 416 (1.74%) developed SSIs. IUSS was used to sterilize instruments prior to 1,524 (6.37%) surgical procedures, and of these procedures 39 (2.56%) developed an SSI, compared to 1.68% of non-IUSS procedures (377 SSI in 22,395 procedures; risk ratio [RR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.10-2.11). Two surgical services had statistically significant RRs for SSI development after IUSS: transplant surgery (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.32-4.60] and plastic surgery (RR 3.64, 95%CI 1.13-11.74; Figure). Conclusion: IUSS is associated with a significant increase in SSIs, including among varied surgery types. IUSS utilization should be minimized.
Tiafenacil is a new nonselective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase–inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat. Early season rice emergence and growth often coincide in the mid-southern United States with applications of preplant herbicides to cotton and soybean, thereby increasing the opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted to identify any deleterious effects of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha−1) applied to 1- or 3-leaf rice. Visual injury 1 wk after treatment (WAT) for the 1- and 3-leaf growth stages ranged from 50% to 7% and 20% to 2%, respectively, whereas at 2 WAT these respective ranges were 13% to 2%, and no injury was observed. Tiafenacil applied at those rates had no negative season-long effect because observed early season injury was not manifested as a reduction in rice height 2 WAT or rough rice yield. Application of tiafenacil to crops directly adjacent to rice in its early vegetative stages of growth should be avoided because visual injury will occur. When off-target movement does occur, however, the affected rice should be expected to fully recover with no effect on growth or yield, assuming adequate growing conditions and agronomic/pest management are provided.
As should be clear from the preceding 50 chapters in this book, the type and number of decisions made in the legal system are virtually endless. In the criminal context, the offenders decide to commit, the victims decide whether to report, and bystanders decide whether to report or cooperate. The police decide if and how they will interrogate. Suspects decide whether to cooperate with police and whether to accept a plea bargain. Attorneys decide whether to prosecute and encourage their clients to settle or negotiate a plea bargain. Psychologists decide if a defendant is competent, insane, and/or amenable to treatment. Jurors decide a verdict (and occasionally, as in death penalty trials, a sentence), and judges decide whether to admit evidence and what sentence a defendant should receive. In the civil context, people harmed decide whether to sue, and attorneys decide whether to take the case and what evidence to rely on. Judges make decisions throughout the civil litigation process, and both jurors and judges can make ultimate decisions (e.g., verdict, damages). Other decisions include legislators’ decisions on defining crime, social workers’ decisions on whether to take action against a parent who is under their supervision, parole board members’ decisions on whether a person in prison should be released, and so on.