Search

The evaluation of odor emissions and dispersion is a very arduous topic to face; the real-time monitoring of odor emissions, the identification of chemical components and, with proper certainty, the source of annoyance represent a challenge for stakeholders such as local authorities. The complaints of people, often not systematic and variously distributed, in general do not allow us to quantify the perceived annoyance. Experimental research has been performed to detect and evaluate olfactory annoyance, based on field testing of an innovative monitoring methodology grounded in automatic recording of citizen alerts. It has been applied in Taranto, in the south of Italy where a relevant industrial area is located, by using Odortel(®) for automated collection of citizen alerts. To evaluate its reliability, the collection system has been integrated with automated samplers, able to sample odorous air in real time, according to the citizen alerts of annoyance and, moreover, with meteorological data (especially the wind direction) and trends in odor marker compounds, recorded by air quality monitoring stations. The results have allowed us, for the first time, to manage annoyance complaints, test their reliability, and obtain information about the distribution and entity of the odor phenomena, such that we were able to identify, with supporting evidence, the source as an oil refinery plant.

Background: In multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) undergone high dose therapy, the outcome of the transplant is better if a good response is achieved before the procedure. Therefore, different attempts have been made in intensifying pre-transplant chemotherapy to improve the response. Aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Thal-Dex in improving the response rate after initial VAD therapy. Methods: 61 untreated MM pts aged ≤65 years were addressed to high dose program with a debulking therapy with 3 pulse-VAD cycles followed by Thal-Dex for 3 months at the following schedule: Thal 100 mg/d orally at bed time, continuously for 3 months, Dex 20 mg/d orally on days 1–4 and 14–17 every 28 days. Response at the end of each phase was defined as follows: complete remission (CR), disappearance of serum and urine monoclonal component (MC) by immunofixation and bone marrow plasmocytosis (BMPC) Results: Responses after VAD were evaluable in 60 pts: RC 7%, VGPR 38%, PR 27%, MR 10%, SD 10%, progression 8%. Four pts dropped out after pulse-VAD for progression and in 1 for toxicity. Responses after Thal-Dex in 52 evaluable pts were: RC 12%, VGPR 40%, PR 17%, MR 4%, SD 4%, Progression 23%. Three pts dropped-out during Thal-Dex, 1 for progression and 2 for toxicity. Of note, pts who obtained a scarce response to VAD, namely a MR or SD, showed a higher probability (85% of cases) to have a progression during or after the administration of Thal-Dex. Statistical analysis (Kendall Concordance Coefficient (p Conclusions: The combination thalidomide-dexamethasone after pulse-VAD is not effective in improving response rate, and shows an additional toxicity. Thus it does not seem useful for the intensification before transplant.