Influence of Bath Additives on the Thermal Stability of the Nanostructure and Hardness of Ni Films Processed by Electrodeposition

The effect of bath additives on the thermal stability of the microstructure and hardness of nanocrystalline Ni foils processed by electrodeposition was studied. Three samples with a thickness of 20 μ m were prepared: one without any additive and two others with saccharin or trisodium citrate additives. Then, the specimens were heat-treated at different temperatures up to 1000 K. It was found that for the additive-free sample the recovery of the microstructure and the reduction of the hardness started only at temperatures higher than 500 K. At the same time, a decrease of the defect density and hardness was observed even at 400 K for the additive-containing films. This was explained by the higher defect density, which increased the thermodynamic driving force for recovery during annealing. At the highest applied temperature (1000 K), this larger thermodynamic driving force resulted in a recrystallization in the sulfur-containing sample, leading to a very low hardness of about 1000 MPa as compared to the additive-free sample (1300 MPa). On the other hand, the sample deposited with trisodium citrate additive showed a better thermal stability at 1000 K than the additive-free sample: the hardness remained as high as 2000 MPa even at 1000 K.

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT

BackgroundChildhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema.DesignPragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups.SettingNinety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically.ParticipantsChildren aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation.InterventionsThe intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding.ResultsFrom December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group,n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval –0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping.LimitationsSimple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups.ConclusionThis trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema.Future workFurther research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness

ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children.DesignPragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups.Setting96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England.Participants483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed.Results483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval −0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThis trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.