Monitoring Winter Flow Conditions on the Ivishak River, Alaska

The Sagavanirktok River, a braided river on the Alaska North Slope, flows adjacent to the trans-Alaska pipeline for approximately 100 miles south of Prudhoe Bay. During an unprecedented flooding event in mid-May 2015, the pipeline was exposed in an area located approximately 20 miles south of Prudhoe Bay. The Ivishak River is a main tributary of the Sagavanirktok River, but little is known about its water flow characteristics and contribution to the Sagavanirktok River, especially in winter and during spring breakup. To gather this information, we installed water level sensors on two main tributaries of the Ivishak River (Upper Ivishak and Saviukviayak rivers), early in winter season 2016–2017, in open-water channels that showed promise as locations for long-term gauging stations. Our ultimate goal was to find a location for permanent deployment of water level sensors. By February, the first sites chosen were ice covered, so two additional sensors, one on each river, were deployed in different locations. Some of the sensors were lost (i.e., carried away by the current or buried under a thick layer of sediments). Water level data gathered from the sensors showed a maximum change of 1.07 m. Winter discharge measurements indicate a 44% reduction between February and April 2017. A summer discharge measurement shows a 430% increase from winter to summer

Hydro-sedimentological Monitoring and Analysis for Material Sites on the Sagavanirktok River

Researchers from the Water and Environmental Research Center at the Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, are conducting a research project related to sediment transport conditions along the Sagavanirktok River. This report presents tasks conducted from summer 2015 to early winter 2016. Four hydrometeorological stations were installed in early July 2015 on the west bank of the river. The stations are spread out over a reach of approximately 90 miles along the Dalton Highway (from MP 405, the northernmost location, to MP 318, the southernmost location). These stations are equipped with pressure transducers and with air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, and turbidity sensors. Cameras were installed at each station, and automatic water samplers were deployed during the open-water season. The stations have a telemetry system that allows for transmitting data in near-real time. Discharge measurements were performed three times: twice in July (early and late in the month), and once in mid-September. Measured discharges were in the order of 100 m3/s, indicating that measurements were performed during low flows. Suspended sediment concentrations ranged from 2 mg/l (nearly clear water) to 625 mg/l. The average grain size for suspended sediment from selected samples was 47.8 μm, which corresponds to silt. Vegetation was characterized at 27 plots near the stations. Measurements of basic water quality parameters, performed during winter, indicated no potential issues at the sampled locations. Dry and wet pits were excavated in the vicinity of each station. These trenches will be used to estimate average bedload sediment transport during spring breakup 2016. A change detection analysis of the period 1985–2007 along the area of interest revealed that during the present study period, the river was relatively stable.ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ vii DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................. vii CONVERSION FACTORS, UNITS, WATER QUALITY UNITS, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DATUM, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ........................................... viii ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS ................................................................. x 1 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 11 2.1 Pit Trenches .................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Meteorology ................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Water Level Measurements ............................................................................................ 13 2.4 Runoff............................................................................................................................. 14 2.5 Suspended Sediment ...................................................................................................... 15 2.6 Turbidity ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Substrate and Floodplain Vegetation Survey ................................................................. 16 2.7.1 Site selection ........................................................................................................... 16 2.7.2 Quantifying substrate .............................................................................................. 16 2.7.3 Characterizing vegetation ....................................................................................... 17 3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Pit Trench Configuration ................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Meteorology ................................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Water Level Observations .............................................................................................. 27 3.4 Runoff............................................................................................................................. 31 3.4.1 Additional runoff observations ............................................................................... 31 3.5 Suspended Sediment ...................................................................................................... 32 3.6 Suspended Sediment Grain-Size Distribution ................................................................ 34 3.7 Turbidity ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.8 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 37 4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Substrate and Vegetation ................................................................................................ 39 4.1.1 Substrate .................................................................................................................. 39 iii 4.1.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 40 4.2 River Channel Stability .................................................................................................. 42 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 56 6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 58 7 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 6

Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, correlates and interventions among Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: a scoping review protocol

Introduction: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities of Australia experience poorer health outcomes in the areas of overweight and obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Contributing to this burden of disease in the Australian community generally and in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, is the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). We have described a protocol for a review to systematically scope articles that document use of SSBs and interventions to reduce their consumption with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These results will inform future work that investigates interventions aimed at reducing harm associated with SSB consumption. Methods and analysis: This scoping review draws on a methodology that uses a six-step approach to search databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Informit (including Informit: Indigenous Peoples), Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database and Mura, between January 1980 and February 2017. Two reviewers will be engaged to search for and screen studies independently, using formulated selection criteria, for inclusion in our review. We will include primary research studies, systematic reviews including meta-analysis or meta-synthesis, reports and unpublished grey literature. Results will be entered into a table identifying study details and characteristics, summarised using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis chart and then critically analysed. Ethics and dissemination: This review will not require ethics committee review. Results will be disseminated at appropriate scientific meetings, as well as through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.Jodie C Avery, Jacqueline A Bowden, Joanne Dono, Odette R Gibson, Aimee Brownbill, Wendy Keech, David Roder, Caroline L Mille

A Phase 1 Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Observer-blinded Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of Inactivated Streptococcus pneumoniae Whole-cell Vaccine in Adults

BACKGROUND: Broadly protective pneumococcal vaccines that are affordable for low-resource countries are needed. Streptococcus pneumoniae whole cell vaccine (wSp) is an investigational vaccine that contains killed cells from a nonencapsulated strain of S. pneumoniae (SPn) with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. Studies in mice demonstrated protection against nasopharyngeal carriage (T-cell-mediated) and invasive pneumococcal disease (antibody-mediated). The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study was to assess safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of wSp in healthy adults. METHODS: Forty-two participants were randomized into 3 dose cohorts to receive 0.1, 0.3, or 0.6 mg of wSp or saline intramuscularly. Participants received a 3-dose vaccination schedule spaced by 4-week intervals. Postvaccination assessments included solicited reactogenicity events through day 7, blood chemistry and hematology assessments at day 7, and adverse events (AEs) through day 84. Participants were monitored for serum antibody and peripheral blood mononuclear cell cytokine responses to pneumococcal antigens. A 6-month telephone follow-up was completed to assess for any additional AEs. RESULTS: wSp was safe and well tolerated. Reactogenicity was acceptable and no untoward safety signals were observed. wSp elicited potentially clinically significant rises (defined arbitrarily as at least a 2-fold rise) in immunoglobulin G responses to multiple pneumococcal antigens, including pneumococcal surface protein A and pneumolysin. Functional antibody responses were observed with the highest dose of wSp (0.6 mg). Increases in T-cell cytokine responses, including interleukin 17A, were also seen among wSp vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: wSp was safe and well tolerated in healthy US adults, eliciting pneumococcal antigen-specific antibody and T-cell cytokine responses

Sagavanirktok River Spring Breakup Observations 2016

In 2015, spring breakup on the Sagavanirktok River near Deadhorse was characterized by high flows that destroyed extensive sections of the Dalton Highway, closing the road for nearly 3 weeks. This unprecedented flood also damaged infrastructure that supports the trans-Alaska pipeline, though the pipeline itself was not damaged. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company made emergency repairs to their respective infrastructure. In December 2015, aufeis accumulation was observed by ADOT&PF personnel. In January 2016, a research team with the University of Alaska Fairbanks began monitoring and researching the aufeis and local hydroclimatology. Project objectives included determining ice elevations, identifying possible water sources, establishing surface meteorological conditions prior to breakup, measuring hydrosedimentological conditions (discharge, water level, and suspended sediment concentration) during breakup, and reviewing historical imagery of the aufeis feature. Ice surface elevations were surveyed with Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques in late February and again in mid-April, and measureable volume changes were calculated. However, river ice thickness obtained from boreholes near Milepost 394 (MP394) in late February and mid-April revealed no significant changes. It appears that flood mitigation efforts by ADOT&PF in the area contributed to limited vertical growth in ice at the boreholes. End-of-winter snow surveys throughout the watershed indicate normal or below normal snow water equivalents (SWE 10 cm). An imagery analysis of the lower Sagavanirktok aufeis from late winter for the past 17 years shows the presence of ice historically at the MP393–MP396 area. Water levels and discharge were relatively low in 2016 compared with 2015. The mild breakup in 2016 seems to have been due to temperatures dropping below freezing after the flow began. Spring 2015 was characterized by warm temperatures throughout the basin during breakup, which produced the high flows that destroyed sections of the Dalton Highway. A comparison of water levels at the East Bank Station during 2015 and 2016 indicates that the 2015 maximum water level was approximately 1 m above the 2016 maximum water level. ii Maximum measured discharge in 2016 was approximately half of that measured in 2015 in the lower Sagavanirktok River. Representative suspended sediment sizes (D50) ranged from 20 to 50 microns (medium to coarse silt). An objective of this study was to determine the composition and possible sources of water in the aufeis at the lower Sagavanirktok River. During the winter months and prior to breakup in 2016, overflow water was collected, primarily near the location of the aufeis, but also at upriver locations. Simultaneously possible contributing water sources were sampled between January and July 2016, including snow, glacial meltwater, and river water. Geochemical analyses were performed on all samples. It was found that the overflow water which forms the lower Sagavanirktok aufeis is most similar (R2 = 0.997) to the water that forms the aufeis at the Sagavanirktok River headwaters (Ivishak River), thought to be fed by relatively consistent groundwater sources.ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER ........................................................................... x CONVERSION FACTORS, UNITS, WATER QUALITY UNITS, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DATUM, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................. xi ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS .............................................................. xiii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................ 6 3 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 6 3.1 Aufeis Extent .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Structure from Motion Imagery ................................................................................ 8 3.1.3 Imagery ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Surface Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Water Levels .................................................................................................................. 11 3.4 Discharge Measurements ............................................................................................... 13 3.5 Suspended Sediment ...................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................ 17 3.6.1 Sampling ................................................................................................................. 17 3.6.2 Trace Element Analysis .......................................................................................... 19 3.6.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 19 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Air Temperature ............................................................................................................. 20 4.2 Wind Speed and Direction ............................................................................................. 29 4.3 Annual Precipitation ....................................................................................................... 30 4.4 Cold Season Precipitation .............................................................................................. 32 4.5 Warm Season Precipitation ............................................................................................ 36 4.6 Aufeis Extent .................................................................................................................. 40 4.6.1 Historical Aufeis at Franklin Bluffs ........................................................................ 40 4.6.2 Delineating Ice Surface Elevation with GPS and Aerial Imagery .......................... 46 4.6.3 Ice Boreholes .......................................................................................................... 55 iv 4.6.4 Ice Accumulation (SR50) ....................................................................................... 58 4.6.5 Ice Thickness and Volume ...................................................................................... 60 4.7 Surface Water Hydrology............................................................................................... 62 4.7.1 Sagavanirktok River at MP318 (DSS4) .................................................................. 67 4.7.2 Sagavanirktok River at Happy Valley (DSS3) ....................................................... 70 4.7.3 Sagavanirktok River Below the Ivishak River (DSS2)........................................... 73 4.7.4 Sagavanirktok River at East Bank (DSS5) Near Franklin Bluffs ........................... 76 4.7.5 Sagavanirktok River at MP405 (DSS1) West Channel .......................................... 85 4.7.6 Additional Field Observations ................................................................................ 86 4.8 Suspended Sediment ...................................................................................................... 87 4.9 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................ 91 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 96 6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 99 7 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 10

Potent selective inhibitors of protein kinase C

AbstractA series of potent, selective inhibitors of protein kinase C has been derived from the structural lead provided by the microbial broth products, staurosporine and K252a. Our inhibitors block PCK in intact cells (platelets and T cells), and prevent the proliferation of mononuclear cells in response to interleukin 2 (IL2)

Timing of Esophagectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy Affects the Incidence of Anastomotic Leaks

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) has become the standard of care for esophageal cancer patients prior to esophagectomy. However, the optimal timing for surgery after completion of nCRT remains unclear. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis for esophageal cancer at a single institution between January 2000 and June 2015. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts: those who did not receive nCRT prior to esophagectomy (no nCRT), those who underwent esophagectomy within 35 days after nCRT (≤35d), and those who underwent esophagectomy more than 35 days after nCRT (>35d). Results: A total of 366 esophagectomies were performed during the study period, and 348 patients met the inclusion criteria. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 11.8% of all patients included in the study (41 of 348). Within each cohort, anastomotic leaks were detected in 14.7% of patients (17 of 116) in the no nCRT cohort, 7.3% (13 of 177) in the ≤35d cohort, and 20.0% (11 of 55) in the >35d cohort (p=0.020). Significant differences in the occurrence of anastomotic leaks were observed between the no nCRT and ≤35d cohorts (p=0.044), and between the ≤35d and >35d cohorts (p=0.007). Conclusion: Esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis within 35 days of nCRT resulted in a lower percentage of anastomotic leaks

Effects of Fenofibrate Treatment on Cardiovascular Disease Risk in 9,795 Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Various Components of the Metabolic Syndrome: The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study

OBJECTIVE—We explored whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effects of fenofibrate differed in subjects with and without metabolic syndrome and according to various features of metabolic syndrome defined by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) in subjects with type 2 diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study

Effects of Fenofibrate Treatment on Cardiovascular Disease Risk in 9,795 Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Various Components of the Metabolic Syndrome: The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study

OBJECTIVE—We explored whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effects of fenofibrate differed in subjects with and without metabolic syndrome and according to various features of metabolic syndrome defined by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) in subjects with type 2 diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study

Role of Barium Swallow in Diagnosing Clinically Significant Anastomotic Leak following Esophagectomy

Background Barium swallow is performed following esophagectomy to evaluate the anastomosis for detection of leaks and to assess the emptying of the gastric conduit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the barium swallow study in diagnosing anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy. Methods Patients who underwent esophagectomy from January 2000 to December 2013 at our institution were investigated. Barium swallow was routinely done between days 5–7 to detect a leak. These results were compared to clinically determined leaks (defined by neck wound infection requiring jejunal feeds and or parenteral nutrition) during the postoperative period. The sensitivity and specificity of barium swallow in diagnosing clinically significant anastomotic leaks was determined. Results A total of 395 esophagectomies were performed (mean age, 62.2 years). The indications for the esophagectomy were as follows: malignancy (n=320), high-grade dysplasia (n=14), perforation (n=27), benign stricture (n=7), achalasia (n=16), and other (n=11). A variety of techniques were used including transhiatal (n=351), McKeown (n=35), and Ivor Lewis (n=9) esophagectomies. Operative mortality was 2.8% (n=11). Three hundred and sixty-eight patients (93%) underwent barium swallow study after esophagectomy. Clinically significant anastomotic leak was identified in 36 patients (9.8%). Barium swallow was able to detect only 13/36 clinically significant leaks. The sensitivity of the swallow in diagnosing a leak was 36% and specificity was 97%. The positive and negative predictive values of barium swallow study in detecting leaks were 59% and 93%, respectively. Conclusion Barium swallow is an insensitive but specific test for detecting leaks at the cervical anastomotic site after esophagectomy