Methodology of calculation of construction and hydrodynamic parameters of a foam layer apparatus for mass-transfer processes

Промислова реалізація методу стабілізації газорідинного шару дозволяє значно розширити галузь застосування пінних апаратів і відкриває нові можливості інтенсифікації технологічних процесів з одночасним створенням маловідходних технологій. У статті встановлені основні параметри, що впливають на гідродинаміку пінних апаратів, розглянуті основні конструкції та режими роботи пінних апаратів. Виявлено зв'язок гідродинамічних параметрів. Розглянуто гідродинамічні закономірності пінного шару. Вказані фактори, що впливають на процес масообміну, як в газовій, так і в рідкій фазах. Проведений аналіз ряду досліджень показав, що перспективним напрямком інтенсифікації процесу масообміну є розробка апаратів з трифазним псевдозрідженим шаром зрошуваної насадки складних форм із сітчастих матеріалів. Отже, необхідне проведення спеціальних досліджень гідродинамічних режимів роботи апарату з сітчастою насадкою і визначенням параметрів, що впливають на швидкість переходу насадки з одного режиму в інший.Industrial implementation of the stabilization method of the gas-liquid layer can significantly expand the field of use of foaming apparatus and opens up new opportunities for intensifying technological processes with the simultaneous creation of low-waste technologies. The article establishes the basic parameters influencing the hydrodynamics of foam apparatus, considers the basic constructions and operating modes of foam apparatus. The connection of hydrodynamic parameters is revealed. The hydrodynamic laws of the foam layer are considered. The indicated factors affecting the process of mass transfer, both in the gas and in the liquid phases. The conducted analysis of a number of studies showed that the perspective direction of intensification of the mass transfer process is the development of apparatuses with a three-phase fluidized bed of an irrigated nozzle of complex forms with mesh materials

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group