Thermal conductivity of refractory glass fibres

In the present study, the current international standards and corresponding apparatus for measuring the thermal conductivity of refractory glass fibre products have been reviewed. Refractory glass fibres are normally produced in the form of low-density needled mats. A major issue with thermal conductivity measurements of these materials is lack of reproducibility in the test results due to transformation of the test material during the test. Also needled mats are inherently inhomogeneous, and this poses additional problems. To be able to compare the various methods of thermal conductivity measurement, a refractory reference material was designed which is capable of withstanding maximum test temperatures (1673 K) with minimum transformation. The thermal conductivity of this reference material was then measured using various methods according to the different standards surveyed. In order to compare different materials, samples have been acquired from major refractory glass fibre manufacturers and the results have been compared against the newly introduced reference material. Materials manufactured by melt spinning, melt blowing and sol–gel have been studied, and results compared with literature values

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>US mentholated cigarette sales have increased considerably over 50 years. Preference for mentholated cigarettes is markedly higher in Black people. While menthol itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, its acute respiratory effects might affect inhalation of cigarette smoke. This possibility seems consistent with the higher lung cancer risk in Black men, despite Black people smoking less and starting smoking later than White people. Despite experimental data suggesting similar carcinogenicity of mentholated and non-mentholated cigarettes, the lack of convincing evidence that mentholation increases puffing, inhalation or smoke uptake, and the similarity of lung cancer rates in Black and White females, a review of cigarette mentholation and lung cancer is timely given current regulatory interest in the topic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Epidemiological studies comparing lung cancer risk in mentholated and non-mentholated cigarette smokers were identified from MedLine and other sources. Study details were extracted and strengths and weaknesses assessed. Relative risk estimates were extracted, or derived, for ever mentholated use and for long-term use, overall and by gender, race, and current/ever smoking, and meta-analyses conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight generally good quality studies were identified, with valid cases and controls, and appropriate adjustment for age, gender, race and smoking. The studies afforded good power to detect possible effects. However, only one study presented results by histological type, none adjusted for occupation or diet, and some provided no results by length of mentholated cigarette use.</p> <p>The data do not suggest any effect of mentholation on lung cancer risk. Adjusted relative risk estimates for ever use vary from 0.81 to 1.12, giving a combined estimate of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.02, n = 8), with no increase in males (1.01, 0.84-1.22, n = 5), females (0.80, 0.67-0.95, n = 5), White people (0.87, 0.75-1.03, n = 4) or Black people (0.90, 0.73-1.10, n = 4). Estimates for current and ever smokers are similar. The combined estimate for long-term use (0.95, 0.80-1.13, n = 4) again suggests no effect of mentholation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Higher lung cancer rates in Black males cannot be due to their greater preference for mentholated cigarettes. While some study weaknesses exist, the epidemiological evidence is consistent with mentholation having no effect on the lung carcinogenicity of cigarettes.</p

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40–2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82–1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88–4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.</p

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smoking is a known cause of the outcomes COPD, chronic bronchitis (CB) and emphysema, but no previous systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various smoking indices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Based on MEDLINE searches and other sources we obtained papers published to 2006 describing epidemiological studies relating incidence or prevalence of these outcomes to smoking. Studies in children or adolescents, or in populations at high respiratory disease risk or with co-existing diseases were excluded. Study-specific data were extracted on design, exposures and outcomes considered, and confounder adjustment. For each outcome RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking and various dose response indices, and meta-analyses and meta-regressions conducted to determine how relationships were modified by various study and RR characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 218 studies identified, 133 provide data for COPD, 101 for CB and 28 for emphysema. RR estimates are markedly heterogeneous. Based on random-effects meta-analyses of most-adjusted RR/ORs, estimates are elevated for ever smoking (COPD 2.89, CI 2.63-3.17, n = 129 RRs; CB 2.69, 2.50-2.90, n = 114; emphysema 4.51, 3.38-6.02, n = 28), current smoking (COPD 3.51, 3.08-3.99; CB 3.41, 3.13-3.72; emphysema 4.87, 2.83-8.41) and ex smoking (COPD 2.35, 2.11-2.63; CB 1.63, 1.50-1.78; emphysema 3.52, 2.51-4.94). For COPD, RRs are higher for males, for studies conducted in North America, for cigarette smoking rather than any product smoking, and where the unexposed base is never smoking any product, and are markedly lower when asthma is included in the COPD definition. Variations by sex, continent, smoking product and unexposed group are in the same direction for CB, but less clearly demonstrated. For all outcomes RRs are higher when based on mortality, and for COPD are markedly lower when based on lung function. For all outcomes, risk increases with amount smoked and pack-years. Limited data show risk decreases with increasing starting age for COPD and CB and with increasing quitting duration for COPD. No clear relationship is seen with duration of smoking.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results confirm and quantify the causal relationships with smoking.</p

Low dose balsalazide (1.5 g twice daily) and mesalazine (0.5 g three times daily) maintained remission of ulcerative colitis but high dose balsalazide (3.0 g twice daily) was superior in preventing relapses

BACKGROUND—Balsalazide is a new 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) containing prodrug. Its efficacy in comparison with standard mesalazine therapy and the optimum dose for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis are still unclear.
AIMS—To compare the relapse preventing effect and safety profile of two doses of balsalazide and a standard dose of Eudragit coated mesalazine.
METHODS—A total of 133 patients with ulcerative colitis in remission were recruited to participate in a double blind, multicentre, randomised trial: 49 patients received balsalazide 1.5 g twice daily, 40 received balsalazide 3.0 g twice daily, and 44 received mesalazine 0.5 g three times daily. Efficacy assessments were clinical activity index (CAI) and endoscopic score according to Rachmilewitz, and a histological score. In addition, laboratory tests were performed and urinary excretion of 5-ASA and its metabolite N-Ac-5-ASA was analysed. The study lasted for 26( )weeks.
RESULTS—Balsalazide 3.0 g twice daily resulted in a significantly higher clinical remission rate (77.5%) than balsalazide 1.5 g twice daily (43.8%) and mesalazine 0.5 g three times daily (56.8%) (p=0.006). The respective times to relapse were 161 days, 131 days (p=0.003), and 144 days (NS). Accordingly, pairwise contrasts of the final endoscopic score demonstrated a significant difference (p=0.005) between the two balsalazide treatment groups while differences between either of these two groups and mesalazine were not statistically significant. Patients treated with balsalazide excreted less 5-ASA and N-Ac-5-ASA than patients receiving mesalazine but these differences were not statistically significant. Discontinuation of the trial because of adverse effects occurred in nine patients: three in the balsalazide 1.5 g twice daily group, two in the balsalazide 3.0 g twice daily group, and four in the mesalazine 0.5 g three times daily group. No clinically important new drug safety related findings were identified in this study.
CONCLUSIONS—High dose balsalazide (3.0 g twice daily) was superior in maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis compared with a low dose (1.5 g twice daily) or a standard dose of mesalazine (0.5 g three times daily). All three treatments were safe and well tolerated.


Keywords: balsalazide; mesalazine; aminosalicylic acid; ulcerative coliti