Comparison of Automated Hearing Testing Approaches for Outpatients Receiving Ototoxic Chemotherapy

Detection of the highest audible frequency of hearing is used to monitor patients undergoing chemotherapy for ototoxic effects of pharmaceuticals. The current study evaluated the feasibility of utilizing Creare’s (2016) wireless attenuated hearing test system (WAHTS) in two outpatient cancer treatment centers to administer automated hearing tests for the identification of the highest audible frequency. Twenty cancer patients being treated with carboplatin and cisplatin were recruited for hearing testing and eight untrained nurses were recruited to operate the WAHTS. Ambient noise measurements were taken in each treatment center before and after hearing testing and supported the validity of threshold measurements. Listener participants completed two automated hearing tests: conventional high-frequency audiometry typically used to identify the sensitive region for ototoxicity (SRO) and a newly proposed fixed-level frequency test (FLFT; Fausti et al., 1999; Rieke et al., 2017). The highest audible frequency (HAF) identified by each test method was compared using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The HAF identified by each hearing test method (automated high frequency audiometry [AHFA] vs. FLFT) was not significantly different from each other. The FLFT was completed much faster (24.78 minutes for the AHFA versus 2.4 minutes for the FLFT). Administering the FLFT during outpatient cancer treatment therapy appeared to be a promising test method to potentially overcome current barriers in ototoxicity monitoring. Future research should implement the WAHTS (Creare, 2016) technology in a more diverse assortment of chemotherapy treatment centers with a larger population of participants. Use of the FLFT and AHFA would need to be evaluated as part of a clinical research study that would implement a full ototoxicity monitoring program

An Intermittent-Combustion General Aviation Aircraft Engine Exhaust Noise prediction Algorithm

From an environmental point of view, the reduction of aircraft noise has become an important factor recently. There are two factors that make airplane noise: propeller noise and engine noise. This report puts emphasis on only the engine noise in order to begin understanding what airplane engine exhaust noise is. At first, the engine exhaust noise is comprehended using the Dobrzynski\u27s engine noise theory. Next, a discussion about an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) engine system, engine exhaust system configurations, and microphone setting standards that show the ERAU engine system exhaust noise data. Finally, an Intermittent-Combustion (IC) General Aviation (GA) aircraft engine exhaust noise prediction algorithm using FORTRAN code is compiled. The predicted noise level by this algorithm is compared with the actual airplane engine noise data. Consequently, the results from this algorithm can serve to modify the propulsion system and to design the engine noise reduction system

When and why does it pay to be green ?

The conventional wisdom about environmental protection is that it comes at an additional cost on firms imposed by the government, which may erode their global competitiveness. However, during the last decade, this paradigm has been challenged by a number of analysts. In particular, Porter (Porter, 1991; Porter and van der Linde, 1995) argues that pollution is often associated with a waste of resources (material, energy, etc.), and that more stringent environmental policies can stimulate innovations that may compensate for the costs of complying with these policies. This is known as the Porter hypothesis. In fact, there are many ways through which improving the environmental performance of a company can lead to a better economic or financial performance, and not necessarily to an increase in cost. To be systematic, it is important to look at both sides of the balance sheet.First, a better environmental performance can lead to an increase in revenues through the following channels: i) a better access to certain markets; ii) the possibility to differentiate products and iii) the possibility to sell pollution-control technology. Second, a better environmental performance can lead to cost reductions in the following categories: iv) regulatory cost; v) cost of material, energy and services (this refers mainly to the Porter hypothesis); vi) cost of capital, and vii) cost of labour. Although these different possibilities have been identified from a conceptual or theoretical point of view for some time (Reinhardt, 2000; Lankoski, 2000, 2006), to our knowledge, there was no systematic effort to provide empirical evidences supporting the existence of these opportunities and assessing their “magnitude”. This is the objective of this paper. For each of the seven possibilities identified above [i) through vii)], we present the mechanisms involved, a systematic view of the empirical evidence available, and a discussion of the gaps in the empirical literature. The objective of the paper is not to show that a reduction of pollution is always accompanied by a better financial performance, it is rather to argue that the expenses incurred to reduce pollution can sometime be partly or completely compensated by gains made elsewhere. Through a systematic examination of all the possibilities, we also want to identify the circumstances most likely to lead to a “win-win” situation, i.e., better environmental and financial performance.ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY;INNOVATION;PORTER HYPOTHESIS;ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION;POLLUTION;CAPITAL MARKET;GREEN PRODUCTS