Prioritizing resource allocation to reduce adverse effects of pesticide risk for endangered species.

The use of pesticides promotes food security because of the multiple benefits it brings to agriculture, such as reduction in crop losses. However, the use of pesticides can be potentially harmful to non-target species. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency regulates the use of pesticides to manage the risks associated with these agents and to protect species under the Endangered Species Act. As part of these regulations, pesticides must be registered and then reviewed every 15 years to ensure the use conditions are updated with the best available data. The registration and review process can invoke corrective measures to ensure protection of endangered species. However, the registration review process is highly resource and time consuming. There is currently a backlog of unreviewed pesticides, leaving a large quantity of pesticides without updated use conditions to protect species. Identifying ways to streamline this process is urgently needed. We develop a sequencing approach to address the risk assessment bottleneck in the pesticide registration and review process and identify species that would benefit most from detailed assessments. We then demonstrate the magnitude of potential efficiencies using this sequencing process for 61 terrestrial listed species in the state of California. Our results show a consistent ranking of listed species according to their relative benefits from assessment, with 90 % of the species being robustly classified across scenarios in the sensitivity analysis. We found that prioritizing the assessment of a small group of species could potentially result in high conservation benefits, and identify species in need of more detailed data for a robust sequencing. We examine how a sequencing approach can guide decisions about what species might benefit most from different levels of assessment. Our results demonstrate the conservation benefits of employing a sequencing approach to prioritize the allocation of limited resources for endangered species.

Sulfohemoglobinemia secundaria a zopiclona. Casos clínicos / Sulfhemoglobinemia secondary to the use of zopiclone. Report of two cases

Sulfhemoglobin (SulfHb) is formed by hemoglobin (Hb) oxidation by sulfur compounds. Sulfhemoglobinemia is mainly associated with drugs or intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Patients present with central cyanosis, an abnormal pulse oximetry and normal arterial oxygen partial pressure. These features are shared with methemoglobinemia (MetHb) whose diagnosis requires an arterial co-oximetry. Depending on the device used, SulfHb may produce interference with this technique. We report two females aged 31 and 43 years, consulting at the emergency room with cyanosis. Both had a history of acute and chronic, high dose zopiclone ingestion. Pulse oximetry showed desaturation but with normal arterial oxygen partial pressure. Cardiac and pulmonary diseases were ruled out. Co-oximetry in two different analyzers showed interference or normal MetHb percentages. No other complications ensued, and cyanosis decreased over days. Since MetHb was discarded among other causes of cyanosis in a compatible clinical context, the diagnosis of sulfhemoglobinemia was made. The confirmatory method is not available in Chile. The presence of SulfHb is difficult to diagnose, confirmatory tests are not readily available, and it frequently interferes with arterial co-oximetry. This is attributed to a similar absorbance peak of both pigments in arterial blood. Venous co-oximetry can be useful in this context. SulfHb is a self-limited condition in most cases, however it must be differentiated from methemoglobinemia to avoid inappropriate treatments like methylene blue.

[Sulfhemoglobinemia secondary to the use of zopiclone. Report of two cases]. / Sulfohemoglobinemia secundaria a zopiclona. Casos clínicos.

Sulfhemoglobin (SulfHb) is formed by hemoglobin (Hb) oxidation by sulfur compounds. Sulfhemoglobinemia is mainly associated with drugs or intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Patients present with central cyanosis, an abnormal pulse oximetry and normal arterial oxygen partial pressure. These features are shared with methemoglobinemia (MetHb) whose diagnosis requires an arterial co-oximetry. Depending on the device used, SulfHb may produce interference with this technique. We report two females aged 31 and 43 years, consulting at the emergency room with cyanosis. Both had a history of acute and chronic, high dose zopiclone ingestion. Pulse oximetry showed desaturation but with normal arterial oxygen partial pressure. Cardiac and pulmonary diseases were ruled out. Co-oximetry in two different analyzers showed interference or normal MetHb percentages. No other complications ensued, and cyanosis decreased over days. Since MetHb was discarded among other causes of cyanosis in a compatible clinical context, the diagnosis of sulfhemoglobinemia was made. The confirmatory method is not available in Chile. The presence of SulfHb is difficult to diagnose, confirmatory tests are not readily available, and it frequently interferes with arterial co-oximetry. This is attributed to a similar absorbance peak of both pigments in arterial blood. Venous co-oximetry can be useful in this context. SulfHb is a self-limited condition in most cases, however it must be differentiated from methemoglobinemia to avoid inappropriate treatments like methylene blue.