Selection of Barium Sulphate/Barite Dissolver Chemical through Establishment of Standard Laboratory Screening Protocols

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raja Nor Rafidah Raja Sahar ◽  
Wan Amni W Mohamad ◽  
Ema Farima Rustam Ali Khan ◽  
Siti Aishah Mohd Hatta
1994 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Kuldova ◽  
Ivan Hrdy ◽  
Zdeně Wimmer

1990 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A. Bisset ◽  
M.M. Rodriguez ◽  
C. Diaz ◽  
E. Ortiz ◽  
M.C. Marquetti ◽  
...  

AbstractTwo field-collected strains of Culex quinquefasciatus Say, collected 50 km apart in Havana City, Cuba, were both resistant to malathion and propoxur, while one population also showed low level resistance to temephos. Laboratory selection of the latter population with malathion for 22 generations increased the malathion resistance 1050-fold, temephos resistance 24-fold and propoxur resistance 453-fold compared to the standard laboratory susceptible strain. Synergist studies and biochemical tests indicated that two mechanisms, an elevated esterase and an insensitive acetylcholinesterase, were operative in these strains. The esterase mechanism conferred resistance to malathion, but not to temephos or propoxur. The acetylcholinesterase mechanism increased the level of malathion resistance and extended the cross-resistance spectrum to temephos and propoxur.


2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pingyang Zhu ◽  
Geoff M. Gurr ◽  
Zhongxian Lu ◽  
Kongluen Heong ◽  
Guihua Chen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gian Domenico Iannetti ◽  
Giorgio Vallortigara

Abstract Some of the foundations of Heyes’ radical reasoning seem to be based on a fractional selection of available evidence. Using an ethological perspective, we argue against Heyes’ rapid dismissal of innate cognitive instincts. Heyes’ use of fMRI studies of literacy to claim that culture assembles pieces of mental technology seems an example of incorrect reverse inferences and overlap theories pervasive in cognitive neuroscience.


1975 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 395-407
Author(s):  
S. Henriksen

The first question to be answered, in seeking coordinate systems for geodynamics, is: what is geodynamics? The answer is, of course, that geodynamics is that part of geophysics which is concerned with movements of the Earth, as opposed to geostatics which is the physics of the stationary Earth. But as far as we know, there is no stationary Earth – epur sic monere. So geodynamics is actually coextensive with geophysics, and coordinate systems suitable for the one should be suitable for the other. At the present time, there are not many coordinate systems, if any, that can be identified with a static Earth. Certainly the only coordinate of aeronomic (atmospheric) interest is the height, and this is usually either as geodynamic height or as pressure. In oceanology, the most important coordinate is depth, and this, like heights in the atmosphere, is expressed as metric depth from mean sea level, as geodynamic depth, or as pressure. Only for the earth do we find “static” systems in use, ana even here there is real question as to whether the systems are dynamic or static. So it would seem that our answer to the question, of what kind, of coordinate systems are we seeking, must be that we are looking for the same systems as are used in geophysics, and these systems are dynamic in nature already – that is, their definition involvestime.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document