Economical and technological study of surface grinding versus face milling in hardened AISI D3 steel machining operations

[EN] This work deals with the technological and economic considerations required to select face milling vs. surface grinding operations in the manufacture of hardened steel flat surfaces for dies and moulds. In terms of technological considerations, factors such as component geometry, material and surface quality (dimensional tolerance and surface finish) are taken into account. The economic considerations include the cost of machine depreciation, labour and consumables (cutting tools in face milling vs. grinding wheels and dressing tool in surface grinding). A case study is presented based on the prismatic components in ceramic tile moulds and their associated manufacturing operations. Surface grinding and face milling experimentation was conducted on cold work steel AISI D3 (with hardness of 60 HRC) with aluminium oxide grinding wheels and coated tungsten carbide cutting tool, respectively. Technological attributes and economics of face milling are compared with surface grinding of this type of mould components. The main conclusion is that face milling with chamfered edge preparation in coated tungsten carbide tools is a competitive process, compared with surface grinding, in terms of product quality and economics.The research team would like to acknowledge the main support of the Caja Castello-Bancaixa Foundation and Universitat Jaume I, which support the project: "Integration of Planning, Execution and Control of High Speed Machining Operations in Collaborative Engineering Environments: Application in Moulds for Tile Industry", the ceramic tile mould company MACER S.L., and would like to extend their gratitude to Roberto Menendez, student of industrial engineering. Particular thanks go to the Programme Alssan: European Union Programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America (scholarship no. E04D030982MX). Additional support was provided by Tecnologico de Monterrey through the research group in Mechatronics and Intelligent Machines (http://cidyt.mty.itesm/cimec).Vila Pastor, C.; Siller, H.; Rodríguez, C.; Bruscas Bellido, G.; Serrano, J. (2012). Economical and technological study of surface grinding versus face milling in hardened AISI D3 steel machining operations. International Journal of Production Economics. 138(2):273-283. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.028S273283138

Efeitos da aplicação de retardador (CCC) e acelerador (GA) de crescimento na morfologia e produtividade do feijoeiro (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Carioca)

Verificou-se os efeitos de CCC e GA quando aplicados sob a forma de pulverização das plântulas, na morfologia, florescimento e produtividade do feijoeiro cultivar Carioca, em condições de casa de vegetação. Estudou-se as concentrações de 500, 2000 e 4000 ppm de CCC juntamente com 50 pprn de GA; sendo que CCC 500 + GA 50 ppm promoveu aceleração no crescimento da haste principal e CCC 4000 + GA 50 ppm retardou esse crescimento em relação ao controle. Aplicação de CCC 500 + GA 50 ppm aumentou o número de folhas do feijoeiro. Num período de 2 semanas após o tratamento com CCC 500 + GA 50 ppm ocorreu aumento no comprimento dos meritalos, sendo que 30 dias após a aplicação de CCC 4000 + GA 50 ppm verificou-se diminuição no comprimento dos mesmos. Observou-se aumento no comprimento do limbo foliar 5 dias após os tratamentos com CCC 500 + GA 50 ppm ou CCC 2000 + GA 50 ppm. Ocorreu aumento no número médio de flores com aplicação de CCC 500 + GA 50 ppm. Não ocorreram diferenças significativas entre a produtividade das plantas tratadas com relação ao controle.In this paper the autors tested the effects of (2 - chloroethyl) trimethylammonium chloride (CCC) and gibberellic acid (GA) on the cultivar Carioca of bean, in three different concentrations (500, 2000, and 4000 ppm) of CCC and one concentration of GA (50 ppm). Treatment with CCC 500 ppm + GA 50 ppm increased the height of bean plant and CCC 4000 ppm + GA 50 ppm reduced the height of Phaseolus vulgaris. Application of CCC 500 ppm + GA 50 ppm or CCC 2000 ppm + GA 50 ppm increased the leaf number of bean plant. CCC 500 ppm + GA 50 ppm promoted a increase in the internode length and CCC 4000 ppm + GA 50 ppm reduced the length of internodcs. Application of CCC 500 ppm + GA 50 ppm or CCC 2000 ppm + GA 50 ppm increased the leaf length 5 days after the treatment. CCC 500 ppm + GA 50 ppm promoted higher flowering in relation to the check.

Safety and efficacy of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in adults with cystic fibrosis: randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trials

Background Elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor has been shown to be safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele. Our aim was to identify a novel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator combination capable of further increasing CFTR-mediated chloride transport, with the potential for once-daily dosing. Methods We conducted two phase 2 clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of a once-daily combination of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in participants with cystic fibrosis who were aged 18 years or older. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study (VX18-561-101; April 17, 2019, to Aug 20, 2020) was carried out to compare deutivacaftor monotherapy with ivacaftor monotherapy in participants with CFTR gating mutations, following a 4-week ivacaftor monotherapy run-in period. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h, deutivacaftor 25 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 50 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily, or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily in a 1:1:2:2:2 ratio. The primary endpoint was absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline at week 12. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept study of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (VX18-121-101; April 30, 2019, to Dec 10, 2019) was conducted in participants with cystic fibrosis and heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation (F/MF genotypes) or homozygous for F508del (F/F genotype). Participants with F/MF genotypes were randomly assigned 1:2:2:1 to receive either 5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg of vanzacaftor in combination with tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or a triple placebo for 4 weeks, and participants with the F/F genotype were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or tezacaftor–ivacaftor active control for 4 weeks, following a 4-week tezacaftor–ivacaftor run-in period. Primary endpoints for part 1 and part 2 were safety and tolerability and absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline to day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints were absolute change from baseline at day 29 in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score. These clinical trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03911713 and NCT03912233, and are complete. Findings In study VX18-561-101, participants treated with deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily (n=23) or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily (n=24) had mean absolute changes in ppFEV1 of 3·1 percentage points (95% CI –0·8 to 7·0) and 2·7 percentage points (–1·0 to 6·5) from baseline at week 12, respectively, versus –0·8 percentage points (–6·2 to 4·7) with ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h (n=11); the deutivacaftor safety profile was consistent with the established safety profile of ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h. In study VX18-121-101, participants with F/MF genotypes treated with vanzacaftor (5 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=9), vanzacaftor (10 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=19), vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=20), and placebo (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 4·6 percentage points (−1·3 to 10·6), 14·2 percentage points (10·0 to 18·4), 9·8 percentage points (5·7 to 13·8), and 1·9 percentage points (−4·1 to 8·0), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −42·8 mmol/L (–51·7 to –34·0), −45·8 mmol/L (95% CI –51·9 to –39·7), −49·5 mmol/L (–55·9 to –43·1), and 2·3 mmol/L (−7·0 to 11·6), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 17·6 points (3·5 to 31·6), 21·2 points (11·9 to 30·6), 29·8 points (21·0 to 38·7), and 3·3 points (−10·1 to 16·6), respectively. Participants with the F/F genotype treated with vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=18) and tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline (taking tezacaftor–ivacaftor) at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 15·9 percentage points (11·3 to 20·6) and −0·1 percentage points (−6·4 to 6·1), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −45·5 mmol/L (−49·7 to −41·3) and −2·6 mmol/L (−8·2 to 3·1), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 19·4 points (95% CI 10·5 to 28·3) and −5·0 points (−16·9 to 7·0), respectively. The most common adverse events overall were cough, increased sputum, and headache. One participant in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group had a serious adverse event of infective pulmonary exacerbation and another participant had a serious rash event that led to treatment discontinuation. For most participants, adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Interpretation Once-daily dosing with vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor was safe and well tolerated and improved lung function, respiratory symptoms, and CFTR function. These results support the continued investigation of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in phase 3 clinical trials compared with elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Application of the dissipated energy concept to fatigue cracking in asphalt pavements

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DXN006861 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo