Search

This study aims to identify the role of the Trade Preferential Convention signed between Algeria and Tunisia; which aimed at facilitating and encouraging the development of economic and commercial cooperation between them, in theirs intraregional trade during the period 2004 - 2018, By addressing the theoretical concepts of both intraregional trade and preferential agreements, Addressing the preferential convention between Algeria and Tunisia and its areas of application, following the analytical descriptive approach, Using a set of data and graphs and shapes that illustrate the reality of intra-international trade, the study finds that despite the entry into force of the preferential trade agreement between the two countries However, the trade between the two countries is still sub-standard, as it did not increases in value Intraregional trade for the highest value prior to the Convention's entry into force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vida y Ética is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The objective of this paper is to examine the evolutionary mechanism regarding how a co-creation community network evolves as the growth of user interaction, which differs from the existing studies concentrating on the explanation of the forward problems of information management systems (e.g. motivational identification of user participation and examination of users' outcomes). To achieve this objective, network generation model is formulated as nodes of users, ties of user's interactions, random process, and preferential attachment. Then, real networks formulated by practice and artificial networks generated by the proposed model are compared by cumulative degree distribution, so as to validate the feasibility of the proposed model and to explain user behavior from the perspective of link formulation. Results indicate that: (i) new users account for main contributions for the development of co-creation community; (ii) new users prefer to interact high-influence all the time, while old users interchangeably choose preferential attachment or random linking in different time periods, (iii) the initial number of users, the probability for choosing preferential attachment or random attachment has a great influence on the properties of a user interactive network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The copulation of insects takes place in antipodal, inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, epipodal, reverse epipodal, crucipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, reverse schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, reverse semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, indirect parallelopodal, indirect frontalopodal, pseudoepipodal, inverse pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of male and female. The copulation of stick insects or walking sticks (Phasmatodea) takes mainly place in epipodal and semiepipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately to accessorily also in crucipodal, schizopodal, parallelopodal, inverse antipodal, orthopodal and antipodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of stick insects or walking sticks. The copulation of heelwalkers or gladiators (Mantophasmatodea) takes exclusively place in epipodal and partially established crucipodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of heelwalkers or gladiators. The copulation of ice crawlers and rock crawlers (Grylloblattodea) takes mainly place in epipodal and partially established crucipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in antipodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of ice crawlers and rock crawlers. The copulation of cockroaches (Blattodea) takes almost exclusively place in antipodal position of male and female and only occasionally probably also in epipodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of cockroaches. The copulation of twisted wings (Strepsiptera) takes exclusively place in inverse pseudoepipodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of twisted wings. The copulation of fringed wings or thripses (Thysanoptera) takes place in reverse epipodal, reverse semiepipodal, crucipodal, reverse schizopodal and antipodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of fringed wings or thripses. The copulation of earwigs (Dermaptera) takes mainly place in antipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately to accessorily also in schizopodal and parallelopodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of earwigs. The copulation of moss bugs or beetle bugs (Hemiptera: Coleorrhyncha) takes probably place in epipodal position of male and female. The copulation of fleas (Siphonoptera) takes exclusively place in reverse epipodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of fleas. The copulation of barklice and booklice (Psocoptera) takes mainly place in reverse epipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in antipodal and reverse orthopodal position of both partners and possibly sometimes even in epipodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of barklice and booklice. The copulation von plant lice (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha) takes mainly place in epipodal and orthopodal position of male and female and occasionally also in schizopodal and parallelopodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of plant lice. The copulation of lice (Phthiraptera) takes mainly place in reverse epipodal and inverse antipodal position of male and female as well as possibly occasionally also in epipodal and schizopodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of lice. The copulation of ground lice or angel insects (Zoraptera) takes mainly place in inverse antipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in reverse epipodal and parallelopodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of ground lice or angel insects. The copulation of jumping bristletails (Archaeognatha), silverfish or fishmoths (Zygentoma) and two-pronged bristletails (Diplura) takes exclusively place in indirect parallelopodal position of male and female, whereas other positions of both partners do not occur in the pairing of jumping bristletails, silverfish or fishmoths and two-pronged bristletails. The copulation of springtails (Collembola) takes mainly place in indirect parallelopodal position of male and female and subordinately also in indirect frontalopodal position of both partners, whereas other positions of male and female do not occur in the pairing of springtails. The different positions during the copulation of stick insects or walking sticks (Phasmatodea), heelwalkers or gladiators (Mantophasmatodea), ice crawlers and rock crawlers (Grylloblattodea), cockroaches (Blattodea), twisted wings (Strepsiptera), fringed wings or thripses (Thysanoptera), earwigs (Dermatoptera), moss bugs or beetle bugs (Hemiptera: Coleorrhyncha), fleas (Siphonaptera), barklice and booklice (Psocoptera), plant lice (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha), lice (Phthiraptera), ground lice or angel insects (Zoraptera), jumping bristletails (Archaeognatha), silverfish or fishmoths (Zygentoma), springtails (Collembola) and two-pronged bristletails (Diplura) are described, and the systematical distribution of the different positions during the pairing is explained and illustrated with examples from the individual orders, families and genera of stick insects or walking sticks (Phasmatodea), heelwalkers or gladiators (Mantophasmatodea), ice crawlers and rock crawlers (Grylloblattodea), cockroaches (Blattodea), twisted wings (Strepsiptera), fringed wings or thripses (Thysanoptera), earwigs (Dermatoptera), moss bugs or beetle bugs (Hemiptera: Coleorrhyncha), fleas (Siphonaptera), barklice and booklice (Psocoptera), plant lice (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha), lice (Phthiraptera), ground lice or angel insects (Zoraptera), jumping bristletails (Archaeognatha), silverfish or fishmoths (Zygentoma), springtails (Collembola) and two-pronged bristletails (Diplura). Distribution and abundance of the different positions in the copulation of male and female in the different orders of insects are summarized in the tables 1 - 6 in the attachment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The copulation of insects takes place in antipodal, inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, epipodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of male and female. The copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera) takes mainly place in schizopodal and sympodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in epipodal and antipodal position of both partners, whereas an inverse antipodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of beakflies. The copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera) takes place in different positions in the scorpionflies (Panorpidae), the hangingflies (Bittacidae) and the snow scorpionflies (Boreidae). The schizopodal position of both partners in the pairing occurs in the copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera) only in the scorpionflies (Panorpidae) but not in the hangingflies (Bittacidae) and the snow scorpionflies (Boreidae). The epipodal position of both partners in the pairing occurs in the copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera) only in the snow scorpionflies (Boreidae) but not in the scorpionflies (Panorpidae) and the hangingflies (Bittacidae). The sympodal position of both partners in the pairing and the antipodal position of both partners in the pairing occur in the copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera) only in the scorpionflies (Panorpidae) and the hangingflies (Bittacidae) but not in the snow scorpionflies (Boreidae). The copulation of snakeflies (Raphidioptera) takes mainly place in inverse antipodal, epipodal, semiepipodal and antipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in semischizopodal position of both partners, whereas a sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, reverse epipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of snakeflies. The copulation of alderflies (Megaloptera: Sialidae) takes place in epipodal, reverse semiepipodal, orthopodal, lateralopodal and antipodal position of male and female, whereas an inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of alderflies. The copulation of fishflies (Megaloptera: Corydalidae) takes place in antipodal, epipodal and clinopodal position of male and female, whereas an inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of fishflies. The copulation of stoneflies (Plecoptera) takes mainly place in epipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in antipodal, lateralopodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal and orthopodal position of both partners, whereas an inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodale, semischizopodal, reverse orthopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of stoneflies. The copulation of caddisflies (Trichoptera) takes mainly place in antipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in schizopodal, orthopodal and pseudosympodal position of both partners, whereas an inverse antipodal, sympodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, epipodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of caddisflies. The copulation of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) takes mainly place in reverse semiepipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in antipodal and sympodal position of both partners, whereas an inverse antipodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, pseudosympodal, epipodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, inverse schizopodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of mayflies. The different positions during the copulation of beakflies (Mecoptera), snakeflies (Raphidioptera), alderflies (Megaloptera: Sialidae), stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are described, and the systematical distribution of the different positions during the pairing is explained and illustrated with examples from the individual orders, families and genera of beakflies (Mecoptera), snakeflies (Raphidioptera), alderflies (Megaloptera: Sialidae), stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Distribution and abundance of the different positions in the copulation of male and female in the most important orders of insects are summarized in the tables 1 - 3 in Mader (2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High selectivity and fast charge separation are two important factors for photocatalytic wastewater treatment. Herein, we prepared a molecular imprinted Ag/Ag 3 VO 4 /g-C 3 N 4 photocatalyst (MIP) that exhibited great specific recognition ability along with excellent photocatalytic activity. The ultrathin g-C 3 N 4 nanosheets with high surface are used to prepare. The Z-scheme Ag 3 VO 4 /g-C 3 N 4 heterostructure and the surface plasmon resonance of the photoreduced Ag0 together contributed to the improvement of the separation efficiency of photogenerated electrons and holes. In addition, MIP provides the specific recognition ability to preferentially adsorb the target pollutant. The selectivity of photocatalysis was evaluated by the degradation of oxytetracycline and tetracycline solutions. Photoluminescence and transient photocurrent measurements further prove the improved charge separation efficiency of MIP. A plausible photocatalytic reaction mechanism is proposed based on electron spin resonance measurement and the active species trapping experiments, where indicates that the main active species of this photocatalytic process are O 2 − and h+. This research provides an effective strategy for the simultaneous enhancement of selectivity and activity via molecular imprinting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Structural and dynamical properties of Cu+ in 18.6% aqueous ammonia solution at 298.15 K have been investigated via quantum mechanical charge field molecular dynamics (QMCF MD). The QM region was set to a radius of 6.7 Å to include the first and second solvation shell. The Hartree-Fock (HF) level was applied to calculate the ion-ligand and ligand-ligand interactions in the QM region using the LANL2DZ-ECP basis set for the ion and DZP-Dunning for the ligands. The Cu+ N and Cu+ O radial distribution functions showed maximum first shell probabilities at distances of 2.23 and 2.30 Å, respectively. Predominantly, four NH 3 molecules were found to form a tetrahedral [Cu(NH 3) 4 ]+ complex, although the formation of a short-lived intermediate [Cu(NH 3) 3 H 2 O]+ complex was also observed. The mean residence times of NH 3 and H 2 O ligands in the first solvation shell were estimated as 14.6 ps and 1.3 ps, respectively, reflecting the strong interaction between Cu+ and ammonia as well as the occurrence of rapid water exchange. The vibrational power spectrum of the Cu+ N vibration in the first solvation shell revealed a wave number of 252 cm−1 with a corresponding force constant of 43.0 Nm−1. In addition, an NBO analysis was carried out, confirming the strong electrostatic character of the Cu+ NH 3 and Cu+ H 2 O interaction, and highlighting that the presence of H 2 O ligands may destabilize the first solvation shell. Highlights • The preferential of tetrahedral [Cu(NH 3) 4 ]+ complex is higher than [Cu(NH 3) 3 (H 2 O)]+. • [Cu(NH 3) 3 (H 2 O)]+ is short-lived, and the tetrahedral ammonia was quickly re-formed. • The strong binding Cu+-ammonia is an effective shielding of the central charge. • The strong nature of the Cu+ NH 3 interaction is highlighted by an NBO analysis. • The Cu+–H 2 O case a significantly lower Wiberg index and stabilisation energy [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The copulation of insects takes place in antipodal, inverser antipodal, sympodal, inverser sympodal, reverse sympodal, epipodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, clinopodal, schizopodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal, cyclopodal, pseudocyclopodal and sinusoidal position of male and female. The copulation of grasshoppers (Orthoptera) takes mainly place in epipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in inverse antipodal, antipodal, clinopodal and schizopodal position of both partners and occasionally even in sympodal, inverse sympodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, reverse epipodal, reverse semiepipodal and lateralopodal orientation of male and female, whereas a cyclopodal, sinusoidal, reverse sympodal, semiepipodal, semischizopodal, parallelopodal, pseudoepipodal and pseudocyclopodal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of grasshoppers. The copulation of praying mantids (Mantodea) takes mainly place in epipodal position of male and female as well as subordinately also in clinopodal and schizopodal position of both partners and occasionally even in sympodal and parallelopodal orientation of male and female, whereas a cyclopodal, sinusoidal, antipodal, inverse antipodal, inverse sympodal, reverse sympodal, reverse epipodal, semiepipodal, reverse semiepipodal, semischizopodal, orthopodal, reverse orthopodal, lateralopodal, pseudoepipodal and pseudocyclopodal position of both partners does not occur in the pairing of praying mantids. The copulation of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) takes exclusively place in cyclopodal position of male and female. The different positions during the copulation of grasshoppers (Orthoptera) and praying mantids (Mantodea) as well as dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) are described, and the systematical distribution of the different positions during the pairing is explained and illustrated with examples from the individual orders, families and genera of grasshoppers and praying mantids as well as dragonflies and damselflies. Distribution and abundance of the different positions in the copulation of male and female in the most important orders of insects are summarized in the tables 1 - 3 in the attachment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structure and dynamics of preferential solvation of K(I) ion in aqueous ammonia have been reinvestigated using ab initio quantum mechanical charge field (QMCF) molecular dynamics (MD) simulation. The average coordination number of the first solvation consists of 2 ammonia and 4 waters. The mean residence time is less than 2 ps confirming the rapid mobility of ligands. The distance evolution data shows the frequent of ligand exchanges. The second solvation shell shows a more labile structure. The NBO analysis of the first shell structure emphasizes that interaction of K(I)-H 2 O is stronger than K(I)-NH 3 . The Wiberg bond confirms a weak electrostatic of ion-ligand interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The influence that different sampling methods have on the results and the interpretation of vegetation analysis has been much debated, but little is yet known about how the spatial arrangement of samples affect patterns of species composition and environment–vegetation relationships within the same vegetation type. We compared three data sets of the same sample size obtained by three standard sampling methods: preferential, random, and systematic. These different sampling methods were applied to a study area comprising of 36 ha of intermittently wet Molinia meadows. We compared the performance of the three methods under two management categories: managed (extensively mown) and unmanaged (abandoned for 10 years). A total of 285 vegetation-plots were sampled, with 95 plots recorded per sampling method. In preferential sampling, we sampled only patches of vegetation with an abundance of indicator species of the habitat type, while random and systematic plots were positioned independently from the researcher by using GIS. The effect of each sampling method on the patterns of species composition and species–environment relationships was explored by redundancy analysis and the significance of effects was tested by the randomization test. Preferential sampling revealed different patterns of species composition than random and systematic sampling methods. Random and systematic sampling methods have resulted in broader vegetation variability than with preferential sampling method. Preferential sampling revealed different relationship between soil parameters and species composition in contrast to random and systematic sampling methods. Although we have not found significant differences in vegetation–environment relationships between random and systematic sampling methods, random sampling revealed a more robust correlation of species data to soil factors than preferential and systematic sampling methods. Intentional restriction of vegetation variation sampled preferentially may be detrimental to statistical inference in studies of species composition patterns and vegetation–environment relationships.

The influence that different sampling methods have on the results and the interpretation of vegetation analysis has been much debated, but little is yet known about how the spatial arrangement of samples affect patterns of species composition and environment-vegetation relationships within the same vegetation type. We compared three data sets of the same sample size obtained by three standard sampling methods: preferential, random and systematic. These different sampling methods were applied to a study area comprising of 36 ha of intermittently wet Molinia meadows. We compared the performance of the three methods under two management categories: managed (extensively mown) and unmanaged (abandoned for 10 years). A total of 285 vegetation-plots were sampled, with 95 plots recorded per sampling method. In preferential sampling, we sampled only patches of vegetation with an abundance of indicator species of the habitat type, while random and systematic plots were positioned independently from the researcher by using GIS. The effect of each sampling method on the patterns of species composition and species-environment relationships was explored by redundancy analysis and the significance of effects was tested by the randomization test. Preferential sampling revealed different patterns of species composition than random and systematic sampling methods. Random and systematic sampling methods have resulted in broader vegetation variability than with preferential sampling method. Preferential sampling revealed different relationship between soil parameters and species composition in contrast to random and systematic sampling methods. Although we have not found significant differences in vegetation-environment relationships between random and systematic sampling methods, random sampling revealed a more robust correlation of species data to soil factors than preferential and systematic sampling methods. Intentional restriction of vegetation variation sampled preferentially may be detrimental to statistical inference in studies of species composition patterns and vegetation-environment relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consider an increasing group of individuals who are organized by pairwise collaborations. A successful collaboration attracts newcomers, who start collaborating with one or both participants. However, the new connections can weaken and exhaust the attracting pair's collaboration, which eventually ceases. We investigate the corresponding random graph process in the framework of general time-dependent branching processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Pesticide losses to water can present problems for environmental management, particularly in catchments where surface waters are abstracted for drinking water supply. The relative role of different transfer pathways (spray drift, spills, overland flow and leaching from soils) is often uncertain, and there is a need for experimental observation and modelling to ensure that processes are understood under a range of conditions. Here we examine the transport of propyzamide and carbetamide in a small (15.5ha) headwater sub-catchment dominated by an artificially drained field with strongly undulating topography (topographic gradients >1:10). Specifically, we explore the validity of the “field-scale lysimeter” analogy by applying the one dimensional mathematical model MACRO. Although one dimensional representation has been shown to be reasonable elsewhere, the scale and topography of the monitored system challenge many of the underlying assumptions. MACRO considers two interacting flow domains: micropores and macropores. The effect of subsurface drains can also be included. A component of the outflow from the main drain was identified as originating from an upslope permeable shallow aquifer which was represented using a simple groundwater model. Predicted herbicide losses were sensitive to drain spacing and the organic carbon to water partition coefficient, KOC . The magnitude of the peak water and herbicide transport and their timing were simulated satisfactorily, although model performance was poor following a period of one month when snow covered the ground and precipitation was underestimated by the rain gauge. Total herbicide loads were simulated adequately by MACRO, suggesting that the field-scale lysimeter analogy is valid at this scale, although baseflow contributions to flow needed to be accounted for separately in order to adequately represent hydrological response. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The QMCF simulation method has been performed to investigate the dynamics and solvation structure of Rb+ in aqueous ammonia. The LANL2DZ-ECP basis set was used for the ion and DZP (Dunning) for ligands, while the Hartree-Fock (HF) theory was applied to calculate the interaction between molecules. The radial distribution function (RDF) shows that there was only one solvation shell observed at a distance of 2.6 Å to 4.16 Å, with an average coordination number of 7 and dominantly by water ligand. Ion Rb+ prefers to be hydrated than solvated by ammonia. The MRT of the first solvation shell of 1.5 ps confirms a rapid mobility of ligands. The NBO analysis of ion-ligand affirms a weak electrostatic interaction and dominantly by the charge donor from the LP orbital of ligands to the LP* orbital of the ion. • Rb+ ion prefers to be solvated by water than ammonia in aqueous ammonia system. • Single observed ammonia was trying to enter or leave the first shell rapidly. • Only one solvation shell was observed and dominated by [Rb(H 2 O) 7 + species. • The solvation shell has a labile and dynamics structure. • The NBO analysis confirmed the electrostatic type of ion-ligand interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]