No abstract

No abstract

Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is crucial for water resources assessment. In this regard, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)-Penman-Monteith method (PM) is commonly recognized as a standard method for PET estimation. However, due to requirement of detailed meteorological data, the application of PM is often constrained in many regions. Under such circumstances, an alternative method with similar efficiency to that of PM needs to be identified. In this study, three radiation-based methods, Makkink (Mak), Abtew (Abt), and Priestley-Taylor (PT), and five temperature-based methods, Hargreaves-Samani (HS), Thornthwaite (Tho), Hamon (Ham), Linacre (Lin), and Blaney-Criddle (BC), were compared with PM at yearly and seasonal scale, using long-term (50 years) data from 90 meteorology stations in southwest China. Indicators, viz. (videlicet) Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), relative error (Re), normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE), and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) were used to evaluate the performance of PET estimations by the above-mentioned eight methods. The results showed that the performance of the methods in PET estimation varied among regions; HS, PT, and Abt overestimated PET, while others underestimated. In Sichuan basin, Mak, Abt and HS yielded similar estimations to that of PM, while, in Yun-Gui plateau, Abt, Mak, HS, and PT showed better performances. Mak performed the best in the east Tibetan Plateau at yearly and seasonal scale, while HS showed a good performance in summer and autumn. In the arid river valley, HS, Mak, and Abt performed better than the others. On the other hand, Tho, Ham, Lin, and BC could not be used to estimate PET in some regions. In general, radiation-based methods for PET estimation performed better than temperature-based methods among the selected methods in the study area. Among the radiation-based methods, Mak performed the best, while HS showed the best performance among the temperature-based methods.

Background: Transradial access (TRA) has been considered as the default choice in cardiac catheterization. Although infrequent, vascular complications of this approach remain. Recently, the distal transradial approach (dTRA) in cardiac catheterization was reported by interventionalists. Methods: We retrieved the relevant literatures and reviewed the safety and feasibility of this novel approach in cardiac catheterization. Results: The dTRA for cardiac intervention has superior safety and satisfaction. As a novel approach for cardiac catheterization, access related complications should also be considered by operators, such as RAO, radial spasm, bleeding and haematoma, and injury of the superficial branch of the radial nerve. Conclusions: The dTRA in cardiovascular angiography and intervention was safe and feasible.