Search

Copyright of Plastics Science & Technology / Suliao Ke-Ji is the property of Plastics Science & Technology Editorial Office 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.)

Copyright of Journal of Ecology & Rural Environment is the property of Journal of Ecology & Rural Environment Editorial Office 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.)

Copyright of Chinese Journal of Liquid Crystal & Displays is the property of Chinese Journal of Liquid Crystal & Displays 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.)

Copyright of Chinese Journal of Liquid Crystal & Displays is the property of Chinese Journal of Liquid Crystal & Displays 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.)

Based on a review of the development of maize subsidy policy in the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Brazil and China, the policy evaluation system of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was used to compare and analyze the support level and structural changes of maize subsidy policies in the above countries and region from 1995 to 2018. In terms of support level of maize subsidy policy, the EU has the lowest level, and is followed by Brazil and the US. While China's policy support level for maize is relatively high. China should coordinate subsidy funds, appropriately adjust the amount of subsidies for maize, and actively guide farmers to gradually adjust the planting structure. In terms of support structure for maize subsidy policy, the policy support in the US and EU for maize is mainly payments based on current area (PC), and it is mainly market price support (MPS) in Brazil. As affected by border trade protection measures, such as maize tariff quota management, policy support for maize in China is still dominated by MPS, which has caused some distortions in the market. China should continue to push forward the reform of the maize storage system to make the maize price formed by the market, and gradually increase the international competitiveness of China's maize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology / Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao is the property of Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 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.)

Copyright of Wool Textile Journal is the property of National Wool Textile Science & Technology Information Center 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.)

Copyright of Electric Machines & Control / Dianji Yu Kongzhi Xuebao is the property of Electric Machines & Control 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.)

Copyright of Journal of Modern Laboratory Medicine is the property of Journal of Modern Laboratory Medicine Editorial Department 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.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine 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.)

Copyright of Wool Textile Journal is the property of National Wool Textile Science & Technology Information Center 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.)

Objective: To investigate the neuromuscular blockade, safety and requirements of mivacurium for general anesthesia,while sevoflurane and propofol were used. Methods: Forty patients scheduled for gynecological surgery were randomly divided into sevoflurane group(group S, n=20) and propofol group(group P, n=20). The mivacurium was injected singly during the induction period,and resume to inject at the beginning of muscle relaxation recovery, and stop to pump about 20 min before the end of surgery. The onset time, no response period, recovery time of TOFr(25 %, 50 %, 75 %, 90 %), recovery index, average infusion rate, and average additional times were recorded. Results: There are two cases and one case with mild skin flushing in group S and group P respectively. One patient had mild cough without obvious abnormalities of blood pressure and heart rate in group P. The intubation conditions were all satisfied in both groups. The onset time of induction, no response period and recovery index have no differences in two groups(P>0.05). After stop pumping mivacurium, the recovery time of 25 %, 50 %, 75 %, 90 % are significantly longer in group S than group P(P<0.05). The average infusion rate and additional times of mivacurium were lower in group S than group P during the maintaining period(P<0.05). Conclusions:The neuromuscular blockade, rapid recovery and security should be affirmed when mivacurium was used for general anesthesia. Sevoflurane compared with propofol, the requirement of mivacurium can be reduced from about 20 % to 30 %, the specific effects of propofol on mivacurium dose need to be studied further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]