Environmental Indicator Principium with Case References to Agricultural Soil, Water, and Air Quality and Model-Derived Indicators.

Environmental indicators are powerful tools for tracking environmental changes, measuring environmental performance, and informing policymakers. Many diverse environmental indicators, including agricultural environmental indicators, are currently in use or being developed. This special collection of technical papers expands on the peer-reviewed literature on environmental indicators and their application to important current issues in the following areas: (i) model-derived indicators to indicate phosphorus losses from arable land to surface runoff and subsurface drainage, (ii) glutathione-ascorbate cycle-related antioxidants as early-warning bioindicators of polybrominated diphenyl ether toxicity in mangroves, and (iii) assessing the effectiveness of using organic matrix biobeds to limit herbicide dissipation from agricultural fields, thereby controlling on-farm point-source pollution. This introductory review also provides an overview of environmental indicators, mainly for agriculture, with examples related to the quality of the agricultural soil-water-air continuum and the application of model-derived indicators. Current knowledge gaps and future lines of investigation are also discussed. It appears that environmental indicators, particularly those for agriculture, work efficiently at the field, catchment, and local scales and serve as valuable metrics of system functioning and response; however, these indicators need to be refined or further developed to comprehensively meet community expectations in terms of providing a consistent picture of relevant issues and/or allowing comparisons to be made nationally or internationally.

Comparison of the effects of alendronate sodium and calcitonin on bone-prosthesis osseointegration in osteoporotic rats.

UNLABELLED: Alendronate (ALO) and calcitonin (CT), as commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs in current clinical practice, have been experimentally confirmed to produce the effectiveness of promoting osseointegration at the interface between prosthesis and host bone and enhancing the long-term stability of the prosthesis. Our current study compared these two drugs' effects on the osseointegration of prosthesis and found that both of them could promote bone attachment between prosthesis and host bone; moreover, ALO produced more pronounced effectiveness. INTRODUCTION: A series of findings confirmed that ALO and CT improved bone attachment of implant in animals. However, which one shows stronger effectiveness has not yet been reported by previous researches. Our study compared the effects of the two commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs on the bone-prosthesis osseointegration so as to provide valuable reference for current clinical options of medication. METHODS: Forty female SD rats aged 5 months were randomly set into A, B, C, and D groups. Except for group A, the others were ovariectomized to establish osteoporosis model (lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) decreased by 20% 4 weeks after ovariectomy). All the rats received prosthesis implantation at their tibial plateau. Then, the rats in groups C and D were given ALO (7 mg/kg/w) orally and CT (5 IU/kg/day) subcutaneously for 12 weeks, respectively. Prior to the execution, application of tetracycline hydrochloride for staining in vivo was done. After harvesting and embedding, the tibia with implants were cut into thin slides, then the bone histomorphometry was measured to observe the new bone around prosthesis and to calculate the osseointegration rate of the implants. By comparison, the effect of the two drugs on osseointegration was evaluated. RESULTS: (1) Both ALO and CT can effectively enhance the volume of bone mass surrounding the hydroxyapatite (HA) prosthesis and also significantly lever up osseointegration rate to 63.7% and 45.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). However, ALO produced more periprosthesis osseointegration rate than CT, with difference of 18% (p < 0.05). (2) The rats' lumber BMD increased in both ALO and CT groups, from 0.081 ± 0.009 and 0.078 ± 0.009 to 0.116 ± 0.008 and 0.109 ± 0.010 g/cm(2), respectively. Moreover, the effect of ALO was observed more pronounced than that of CT. CONCLUSIONS: In osteoporotic conditions, both administration of ALO orally and CT subcutaneously can enhance periprosthesis bone mass and the effects on osseointegration between host bone and prosthesis. Compared with CT, the effect of ALO is more pronounced.