Aplicación de la gestión de almacén para mejorar la productividad en el área de almacén de la Ferretería MINAKO SAC., Lima, 2020

La presente investigación tiene como título “Aplicación de la Gestión de Almacén para mejorar la productividad en el área de almacén de la Ferretería MINAKO, Lima, 2020”. Tuvo como objetivo principal, en qué medida la gestión de almacén mejora la productividad en el área de almacén de la ferretería MINAKO, Lima, 2020. Para la metodología utilizada en la investigación, fue de diseño cuasi-experimental, con finalidad aplicada. La población son salidas diarias de despachos del departamento del almacén durante un mes. La técnica que se utilizó para la recolección de datos fue la observación directa y el instrumento las fichas técnicas de registro, que fueron debidamente validados a través de juicios de expertos. Para el análisis de los datos se utilizó Microsoft Excel y SPSS v.25. Se concluyó que la productividad mejoró de 53,06% a un 71,79%, incrementando en un 18,73%, la eficiencia mejoró de 77,29% a un 81,02%, con un incremento de 3,73% y por último la eficacia de 68,65% se mejoró a 88,58%, lo implica un incremento de 19,93%. Por lo tanto los resultados obtenidos, demuestran que la “Gestión de Almacén” mejora la “Productividad” en el almacén de la empresa MINAKO

Portable equipment for a non-destructive analysis of pre-Columbian metal artefacts from the Royal Tombs of Sipán by energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry

On the north coast of present-day Peru flourished approximately between 50 and 700 AD the Moche civilisation. They were sophisticated metalworkers and are considered the finest producers of jewels and artefacts of the region. The Moche metalworking ability was impressively demonstrated by the excavations of the ‘Tumbas Reales de Sipán’, carried out by Walter Alva et al. in 1987. About 50 metal objects from these excavations, now at the Museum ‘Tumbas Reales de Sipán’, in Lambayeque, North of Peru, were analysed with a portable equipment which uses energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF). This portable equipment is mainly composed of a small-sized X-ray tube and a thermoelectrically cooled, small-sized X-ray detector. Standard samples of gold and silver alloys were employed for calibration and quantitative determination. The analysed artefacts are mainly gold, silver and copper alloys, gilded copper and tumbaga, the last being a poor gold alloy enriched at the surface by depletion gilding, i.e. by removing copper and silver from the surface. In the case of gold, silver and copper alloys, their composition was determined by the EDXRF analysis in the usual manner, i.e. by employing standard alloys. In the case of gilded copper or tumbaga, the ratios Cu(Kα/Kβ) and (Au-Lα/Cu-Kα) were accurately determined from the X-ray spectra, first to clearly distinguish gilded copper from tumbaga and then to determine the gilding thickness or an ‘equivalent gilding thickness’ in the case of tumbaga. The combination of the two ratios is a clear indication of the nature of the alloy (gold, gilded Cu or tumbaga) and allows an accurate measurement of the gilding thickness in the case of gilded copper objects or, in the case of tumbaga, the ‘equivalent’ gold thickness was measured to be &#126;2.8 µm. From all measurements, the mean approximate composition and thickness of Sipán alloys is the following: 1.Gold: Au = &#126;70%, Ag = &#126;20% and Cu = &#126;10% 2.Gilding of gilded copper: Au = &#126;97.5% and Ag = &#126;2.5%; thickness = &#126;0.6 µm 3.Tumbaga: ‘equivalent’ Au thickness = &#126;2.5 µm 4.Silver: Ag = &#126;92%, Cu = &#126;5% and Au = &#126;3% 5.Copper: Cu = &#126;99% with traces of iron and nickel</ul

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health