EFFECTS OF ANGLE VARIATIONS
PUSH-UP EXERCISE
IRFAN GULMEZ
Department of Coaches Education, School of Physical Education and Sports, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Gulmez, I. Effects of angle variations in suspension push-up
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 1017–1023, 2017—This
study aimed to determine and compare the amount of loads on
the TRX Suspension Trainer (TRX) straps and ground reaction
forces at 4 different angles during TRX push-ups. Twenty-eight
male (mean age, 24.1 6 2.9 years; height, 179.4 6 8.0 m;
weight, 78.8 6 9.8 kg) physical education and sports university
students participated in this study. The subjects were tested at
TRX angles (0, 15, 30, 458) during the TRX push-ups. Force
data were recorded by a force platform and load cells inte-
grated into the TRX straps. The results show that as the TRX
angle was reduced, the load applied to the TRX straps
increased and simultaneously the load measured by the force
platform decreased. This was true for both the elbow joint
changing from flexion to extension and vice versa. When the
TRX angle was set at 08 and subjects’ elbows were at exten-
sion during TRX push-up, 50.4% of the subjects’ body weight,
and when the elbows were at flexion, 75.3% of the body
weight was registered by the sensors on the TRX straps. The
results of this study can be used in the calculation of the train-
ing load and volume (resistance training programming) during
TRX push-up exercises at varying angles.
KEY WORDS TRX, resistance training, force
INTRODUCTION
U
se of unstable training devices such as suspension
systems for health and to enhance athletic perfor-
mance are increasingly becoming popular (3–5).
In particular, suspension systems are used and
adapted by trainers to implement resistance training, providing
users with numerous upper-body and lower-body exercise
options (8,16). The TRX suspension system (TRX) is one such
device that is used for purposes ranging from athletic condi-
tioning to general fitness and rehabilitation (7,17).
Address correspondence to Irfan Gulmez, irfan.gulmez@marmara.
edu.tr.
31(4)/1017–1023
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
IN SUSPENSION
Push-up exercises with TRX are performed by altering
the degree of body angles from the prone position or by
changing the height of the TRX straps from the ground
level. In this type of exercise, the body weight is used
against the gravity to perform multiplanar and multijoint
resistance training (16,19). To accommodate resistance
requirements of users, TRX straps are manipulated by
modifying length, angles of push-pull, and body posi-
tions. With TRX, the loads encountered during the exer-
cise are percentages of the user’s body mass. This is
important, as the degree of resistance experienced during
resistance exercise is the basis of appropriate exercise
prescription (14,17).
When resistance training exercises are performed with
explicitly labeled masses like dumbbells, weight plates,
and machines, training volume and intensity are calcu-
lated easily as a percentage of maximum loads (11). How-
ever, the quantification of intensity and load in
suspension training systems such as TRX push-up is
challenging.
There are many studies on push-ups, performed with different
hand positions (9,10,12,13,23,24) on different platforms and sur-
faces (1,4,15) and also using suspension systems with muscle
activation (2,8,16,17,19–21).
During standard push-ups, ground reaction forces reached
up to 69% of body weight while the elbows were extended,
and up to 75% of body weight while elbows were at flexion
(10,12,13,18,22). When the hands were elevated on
a 30.5-cm box, ground reaction forces dropped to 55% of
body weight, and to 41% of body weight when the hands
were elevated on a 61.0-cm box (11).
Melrose and Dawes (17) investigated loads during
a 5-second static hanging position performed at 4 different
body angles, extending elbows until subjects reached the
supine position. This study revealed that as the angle
increased from 30 to 758 between the subject and the
ground, the subjects’ arms encountered body mass resistance
between 37.4 and 79.4%.
There is no likewise study to assess the load on upper and
lower extremities during TRX push-ups at different angles.
For this reason, it is vital to compare the impact on the upper
and lower extremities during the TRX push-ups. The aim of
this study was to assess the loads at different TRX angles as
recorded by the ground force platform and the load cells
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1017
 TRX Suspension Push-Up

Figure 1. TRX suspension device.
attached to the straps. From these data, the percentage of
body weight use was calculated, which provides guidance to
prescribe training programs.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This research was designed to determine the loads applied
to the lower and upper extremities during TRX push-up
exercises with various angles. The highest loads were
recorded when elbows are in flexion and in extension. The
effects on the load difference with the angle changes were
evaluated. The dependent variables consisted of data re-
corded from the force platform, load cells (via straps). The
independent variables were the 4 different vertical angles of
the TRX push-ups.
Subjects
Twenty-eight male physical education and sports university
students (mean age = 24.1 6 2.9 years, height = 179.4 6
8.0 m, weight = 78.8 6 9.8 kg) voluntarily participated in this
study. Subjects had a minimum 1 year of resistance training
experience, performing at least 2 sessions per week and
a minimum of 3 months of suspension training experience,
using this kind of training at least 1 time per week. They had
no previous history of injuries of the upper and lower limbs in
the last 6 months preceding the study. All subject were right
handed. During the 08 TRX push-up application; 3 subjects
with the upper extremity showing mostly fasciculation
tremor, nonspecific pain complaint and/or insufficient stabili-
zation, were excluded from the study. They gave their
informed consent for the experimental procedure as required
by the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and Marmara Univer-
sity’s ethics committee (Protocol: 0920140213, October
10, 2014).
Procedure
Each subject took part in 2 sessions: familiarization and
experimental, both at the same hour during the morning.
The familiarization session was performed 48–72 hours
before the data collection in the experimental session.

Figure 2. Elbow extension positions during TRX push-up at different angles.

the TM

1018 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Values obtained from the TRX straps, force platform, and the differences as a percentage between flexion
and extension.

TRX strapsnorm (kg) Force platformnorm (kg)

Elbow flexion, Elbow extension, Elbow flexion, Elbow extension,

Angles mean 6 SD mean 6 SD mean 6 SD mean 6 SD

458 36.8 6 5.6 11.9 6 3.9 80.7 6 14.9 97.5 6 19.6

308 49.1 6 9.0 22.4 6 6.1 65.9 6 11.5 84.8 6 12.9
158 64.6 6 6.8 35.1 6 6.4 51.1 6 15.2 66.6 6 12.9
08 75.3 6 5.2 50.4 6 4.3 33.2 6 7.9 46.6 6 7.6
p 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*

*Significant (p # 0.05).

Several restrictions were imposed on the volunteers: no
food, drinks, or stimulants (e.g., caffeine) to be consumed
4 hours before the sessions and no arduous physical activ-
ities were allowed except daily routines 24 hours before
the exercises. The same investigators made all measure-
ments during the morning and the procedures were always
conducted in the same laboratory (average temperature
at 258 C).
Before testing, participants were familiarized with the
push-up exercise on another TRX. Subjects practiced the
exercises typically 5 times before tests. Height and body
weight were measured with Tanita model BF- 350 (digital
scales (0.1 kg) for body weight and fat).
The TRX suspension anchor (TRX angle) was set at right
angle (908) with the ceiling and this alignment was referred to
as the zero (08) angle reference point. The 4 different angles
were measured with a goniometer using 2 laser pointer light
streams originating at the main anchor, one vertical to the
ground and the other aligned with the TRX straps.
The subjects performed dynamic warm-up exercises of the
upper and lower limbs muscles for 10 minutes before the
trials. The subjects were asked to grip the TRX handles set at
TABLE 2. Percentage changes of loading on the TRX straps and the force
platform for the transitions between the different angles.
TRX straps (%)
Different of TRX Elbow Elbow
angles flexion extension
15–08 15 43
30–08 53 127
45–08 103 317
strap mid length while standing on the force platform. Their
feet were positioned shoulder width apart. The subjects
adopted a traditional push-up starting position with elbows
at extension. They maintained this isometric contraction for
4 seconds while maintaining a neutral spine position. Then
the subjects began the flexion phase of the push-up until the
correct depth was reached (chest reaching the level of the
hands). Finally, the elbows were extended to full length
(starting position). This push-up exercise was repeated 5
times and the elbows were kept at extension for 4 seconds
after the fifth run. This movement scheme was repeated for
all TRX angles, respectively (45, 30, 15, and 08). Subjects
rested 2 minutes between each test. A metronome (Quartz
Metronome; Seiko Instruments Inc., Hong Kong, China) was
used to control the cadence of the push-up repetitions. Each
flexion and extension phase was performed in 1 second (1
second up and 1 second down). Verbal feedback was given to
the subjects by an experienced trainer to maintain the range
of movement, correct body position, and hand distance dur-
ing the data collection. A trial was discarded and repeated if
participants were unable to perform the exercise with the
correct technique.
Instrumentation
A TRX Suspension device (TRX
Suspension Trainer; Fitness Any-
where, LLC, San Francisco, CA,
USA) was used for the suspen-
sion push-up exercises. The
Force platform (%)
TRX Suspension Trainer, was
Elbow Elbow anchored to the ceiling accord-
flexion extension ing to the manufacture’s manual
(6). The height for the TRX han-
235 230 dles was set at 60 cm (strap mid
250 245
259 252 length) from the ground level.
To record the load on the
TRX straps, load cells (Cas Coop,
Seol, Korea) were fitted between

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1019

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TRX Suspension Push-Up
Figure 3. The load on TRX straps and force platform at elbow flexion.
the cam-buckles on both sides (Figure 1). Data were collected
(sampling rate 100 Hz) by the specific indicator (PC30A Data
Logger; Kyowa Inc., Korea) and its original software (PCD 30;
Kyowa Inc.).
The test was conducted with the subjects’ feet placed on
the force platform (sampling rate 100 Hz, MatScan System)
while gripping the TRX handles (MatScan System; Tekscan,
Inc., Boston, MA, USA). The data were recorded by original
software for MatScan System. Calibration of the system was
performed according to the manufacturer’s recommenda-
tions in the manual.
TRX push-up trials were conducted at 4 angles (45, 30,
15 and 08; Figure 2). Body positions and movements were
visually monitored and recorded by a 30 fps camera
(TRV900E; Sony).
Figure 4. The load on TRX straps and force platform at elbow extension.
the TM
1020 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Statistical Analyses
The recorded load data from the load cells integrated in the
TRX device were analyzed separately for the extension and
flexion phases. Subjects were instructed to do 5 push-ups at
each angle. Maximum force values reached in flexion and
extension phases during the TRX push-up were used in this
study.
The first and fifth repetitions were excluded from data
analyses. Only the mean of the second, third, and fourth
values were used. The values obtained from the load cells in
the TRX straps were classified as loads borne by the TRX
straps and those obtained from the force platform as loads
borne by the force platform.
The recorded loads were normalized by body weight
(loadnorm = load/body weight 3 100). Using this normalized
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Load distribution on TRX straps and the force platform at 4 different angles expressed as percentage of the
total load.

Loads on the straps (%) Loads on the force platform (%)

TRX Right (dominant Left (nondominant Total, Right (foot) Left (foot) Total,
angles Elbow positions hand), mean hand), mean mean mean mean mean

458 Elbow flexion 17.3 17.4 34.7 31.3 34 65.3

Elbow extension 6.8 6.6 13.4 42.9 43.7 86.6
308 Elbow flexion 23 22.8 45.8 27.4 26.8 54.2
Elbow extension 12 11.7 23.7 38.5 37.8 76.3
158 Elbow flexion 29.7 29.5 59.2 21 19.8 40.8
Elbow extension 18.3 18.8 37.1 32.1 30.7 62.8
08 Elbow flexion 35.3 36.4 71.7 12.4 15.9 28.3
Elbow extension 26.5 27.7 54.2 22.1 23.7 45.8

loads, the distribution on the straps and on the force plat-
form was expressed as percentages of the total load.
One-way analyses of variance with Scheffé and Dunnett C
post hoc procedures were used to compare the difference
between measurements of each angle (45, 30, 15, and 08).
Levene homogeneity of variance test performed to decide
the equality of variances. According to homogeneity test
results, Tukey and Dunnett C post hoc tests were performed.
The significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
Force values differences, normalized to subjects’ body
weights and angles are shown in Table 1. When loads at
the varying TRX angles were compared, the differences
between the loads were significant both for the flexion and
extension phases, and this was valid for the TRX straps as
well as for the force platform values (p = 0.000). Post hoc
comparisons revealed that between all angles there were
significant differences (p # 0.05). The difference between
the dominant and nondominant arms was not significant
(p . 0.05).
With decreasing angle, the loading on the TRX steadily
increased while the loads on the force platform steadily
decreased. On the TRX straps, the transition from 45 to
08 resulted in more than a twofold increase of loading for the
flexion and in more than a fourfold increase for the extension
phase. In comparison, the decrease of loading on the force
platform was comparable for the flexion but less pronounced
for the extension phase. The transition from 45 to
08 decreased ground reaction forces to less than half for both
phases (Table 2).
When the elbow is in flexion, with the increase in the
TRX angle, the load on the TRX straps decreases as the load
on the force platform increases (Figure 3). And the measure-
ments with the elbow extension, at 08 the load on the TRX
straps and the force platform are similar. As the angle in-
creases, the load on the TRX dramatically decreases and the
load on the force platform dramatically increases (Figure 4).
As can be seen from Table 3, the distribution of the load
on the dominant and nondominant arms was alike. This
similarity could also be observed on the force platform.
DISCUSSION
In this study, it has been determined that with the increase of
the angle during the TRX push-up exercise, the load on the
straps decreases. When the TRX angle is set at 08 and the
elbows were at extension, 50.4% of the body weight was
recorded from the TRX straps, and when the elbows were
at flexion, 75.3% of the body weight was on straps. This
study also shows that with varying angles, the load on the
TRX straps are similar for both left and right. Therefore, the
subject’s dominant and nondominant arms pose no differ-
ence in the workload, which means the exercise is
symmetrical.
During the standard push-up exercise (SPU), the loading
with the elbows in flexion was reported to be 75% of the
bodyweight, whereas in extension it was 64–69% of the body
weight (11,18,22).
In the above-mentioned studies, the values calculated
when the elbows at flexion were similar to the ones that
were calculated with TRX angle at 08 in this study (the
closest position the SPU). During the elbows extension at
SPU (11,13,18,22), the values calculated were 27–37% higher
compared with this study. The TRX handles being 60 cm
higher from the ground and the elbows in extension causes
the upper body to be higher from the ground than in the
position during the SPU. This position causes the load to be
transferred to the lower extremities.
The hand-elevated exercise that Ebben et al. (11) used
with the 61-cm box is similar to the exercise used in this

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TRX Suspension Push-Up
study. Ebben et al. (11) showed that for this position where
the elbows were in extension, the subject worked with 41%
of the body weight. In this study for the same height, the
load was found to be 23% higher than the load mentioned in
the study of Ebben et al (11). This could be due to the
unstable surface of TRX push-up and the difference in the
cadence in the study of Ebben et al. (12) (2 seconds up and 2
seconds down). This is also compatible with the argument of
Mier et al. (18), which is, “the difference in cadence changes
the relative load”. Another source for the difference might be
that Ebben et al. (11) collected the data on the average of
only 2 push-ups. Gender differences might also be the cause
of the dissimilarities in the study of Ebben et al. (11).
Melrose and Dawes (17) used the angle between the subject
and the floor instead of TRX’s anchor connection point as in
our study. The above-mentioned study, even with the differ-
ences in the design, has the closest set-up to our study. In the
study from Melrose and Dawes (17), the increase in the load
on the TRX straps as the angle of the subject decreases from
the floor is similar to our study. However, because of the
method of angle measurement difference from our study,
there has not been a comparison for all the angles.
The loads on the TRX straps increased both in the
extension and flexion phases as the TRX angle decreased.
The highest load was recorded when the angle was at 08 in
flexion phase and the lowest was recorded when the angle
was at 458 in extension phase. Both in the flexion and exten-
sion phase, decreases in TRX angle result in a linear reduction
of the load on the force platform (Figures 3 and 4). As the
subject reaches the erect position with the TRX at 458, most
of the body weight is recorded in the force platform. When
the TRX angle was set at 08 and elbows extended, the load on
the TRX straps and that exerted by the feet on the force
platform were nearly equal. However; when the elbows were
in flexion and at TRX angle 08, the load on the straps
increased and the load on the force platform decreased. It is
stated in the TRX manual that TRX push-ups are harder to
perform when the angle is at 08 (6). This can be explained by
the challenge in maintaining the body balance and stabiliza-
tion at 08 in TRX push-up position, and also because of the
exposure to the higher loads by the upper-body limbs. The
stabilization difficulty of the subject at 08 extension could be
due to the bodies and extremities angles (becoming more
parallel to the floor) and to the threefold (317%) increase in
load at this position (Table 2). This study revealed that the
challenge of TRX push-ups mainly originated from the flexion
phase at narrow angles between 0 and 158 as the load
increased on the upper limbs. For this reason, resistance train-
ing of the upper extremities using TRX should be conducted
at 0 and 158 angles, especially in the flexion phase.
There are several limitations to the results of this study.
Subjects were of single gender, and the loading was not
measured at the center of the subject’s body.
In future studies, data should be collected from the static
halts for the elbows up (extension) and down (flexion)
the TM
1022 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
position. Information from the hands on the local distribu-
tion of force could also be gathered, using gloves with force
sensors. Different heights and angles of the TRX straps can
also be evaluated.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The loads on the TRX straps increase by decreasing the
TRX push-up application angle (45–08). Throughout all
angles, the applied load is higher during the flexion phase
than the extension. During the TRX push-up exercise, the
lowest load applied to the arms and the straps of the TRX
is at the 458 extension position. For beginners with TRX
push-up exercises, it would be advisable to start with iso-
metric exercises at elbows extended position at 45 and 308
instead of TRX push-ups including flexion and extension at
458. TRX push-ups including flexion and extension at 45–
308 can be applied gradually after this phase. There was
more than fourfold increase in the loading on the upper
extremities when the TRX angle was changed from 45 to
08. Rapid transition from the angle of low-intensity training
at 45–08 without any gradual transition at 30–158, will result
in increased load on the fourfold upper limbs. It is recom-
mended to plan the trainings with a gradual increase to
prevent any injuries. Following this, the TRX angle can
be reduced to facilitate progression of training intensity.
The TRX angle at 08 provides the most challenging upper
extremities push-up exercise, particularly as the arms move
from extension to flexion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the employees of Marmara University Medical
Faculty Prosthetic and Orthotic Laboratory and Marmara
University Center of Sports Sciences and Athletic Health,
Dr. Yasar Tatar, Dr. Nusret Ramazanoglu, Dr. Semih Yilmaz
for their contributions.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, K and Behm, DG. The impact of instability resistance
training on balance and stability. Sports Med 35: 43–53, 2005.
2. Beach, TA, Howarth, SJ, and Callaghan, JP. Muscular contribution
to low-back loading and stiffness during standard and suspended
push-ups. Hum Movt Sci 27: 457–472, 2008.
3. Behm, DG and Colado, JC. The effectiveness of resistance training
using unstable surfaces and devices for rehabilitation. Int J Sports
Phys Ther 7: 226–241, 2012.
4. Behm, DG, Drinkwater, EJ, Willardson, JM, and Cowley, PM. The
use of instability to train the core musculature. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 35: 91–108, 2010.
5. Beim, GM, Giraldo, JL, Pincivero, DM, Borror, MJ, and Fu, FH.
Abdominal strengthening exercises: A comparative study. J Sports
Rehab 6: 11–20, 1997.
6. Bettendorf, B. TRX Suspension Training Bodyweight Exercises: Scientific
Foundations and Practical Applications. San Francisco, CA: Fitness
Anywhere Inc., 2010.
7. Byrne, JM, Bishop, NS, Caines, AM, Crane, KA, Feaver, AM, and
Pearcey, GEP. Effect of using a suspension training system on
muscle activation during the performance of a front plank exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 3049–3055, 2014.

8. Calatayud, J, Borreani, S, Colado, JC, Martı́n, FF, and Rogers, ME.
Muscle activation during push-ups with different suspension
training systems. J Sports Sci Med 13: 502–510, 2014.
9. Cogley, RM, Archambault, TE, Fiberger, JF, Koverman, MM,
Youdas, JM, and Hollman, JH. Comparison of muscle activation
using various hand positions during the push-up exercise. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 628–633, 2005.
10. Donkers, M, An, KN, Chao, EY, and Morrey, BF. Hand position
affects elbow joint load during push-up exercise. J Biomech 26: 625–
632, 1993.
11. Ebben, WP, Wurm, B, VanderZanden, TL, Spadavecchia, ML,
Durocher, JJ, Bickham, CT, and Petushek, EJ. Kinetic analysis of
several variations of push-ups. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2891–2894,
2011.
12. Freeman, S, Karpowicz, A, Gray, J, and McGill, SM. Quantifying
muscle patterns and spine load during various forms of the push-up.
Med Sci Sport Exerc 38: 570–577, 2006.
13. Gouvali, MK and Boudolos, K. Dynamic and electromyographical
analysis in variants of push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res 19: 146–
151, 2005.
14. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
15. Lehman, GJ, MacMillan, B, MacIntyre, I, Chivers, M, and Fluter, M.
Shoulder muscle EMG activity during push-up variations on and off
a Swiss ball. Dyn Med 5: 7, 2006.
16. McGill, SM, Cannon, J, and Andersen, J. Analysis of pushing
exercises: Muscle activity and spine load while contrasting
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
techniques on stable surfaces with a labile suspension strap training
system. J Strength Cond Res 28: 105–116, 2014.
17. Melrose, D and Dawes, J. Resistance characteristics of the TRX
suspension training system at different angles and distances from the
hanging point. J Athl Enhancement 4: 1, 2015.
18. Mier, C, Amasay, T, Capehart, S, and Garner, H. Differences
between men and women in percentage of body weight supported
during push-up exercise. Int J Exerc Sci 7: 2, 2014.
19. Mok, NW, Yeung, EW, Cho, JC, Hui, CS, Liu, KC, and Pang, CH.
Core muscle activity during suspension exercises. J Sci Med Sport 18:
189–194, 2014.
20. Snarr, RL and Esco, MR. Electromyographic comparison of
traditional and suspension push-ups. J Hum Kinetics 39: 75–83, 2013.
21. Snarr, RL, Esco, MR, Witte, EV, Jenkins, CT, and Brannan, RM.
Electromyographic activity of rectus abdominis during a suspension
push-up compared to traditional exercises. J Exer Phys Online 16: 1–
8, 2013.
22. Suprak, DN, Dawes, J, and Stephenson, MD. The effect of
position on the percentage of body mass supported during
traditional and modified push-up variants. J Strength Cond Res 25:
497–503, 2011.
23. Tucker, SW, Gilbert, ML, Gribble, PA, and Campbell, BM. Effects of
hand placement on scapular muscle activation during the push-up
plus exercise. Athl Train Sports Health Care 1: 107–114, 2009.
24. Youdas, JW, Budach, BD, Ellerbusch, JV, Stucky, CM, Wait, KR, and
Hollman, JH. Comparison of muscle-activation patterns during the
conventional push-up and Perfect Pushup exercises. J Strength Cond
Res 24: 3352–3362, 2010.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1023