Simulation of the low earth orbital atomic oxygen interaction with materials by means of an oxygen ion beam

Atomic oxygen is the predominant species in low-Earth orbit between the altitudes of 180 and 650 km. These highly reactive atoms are a result of photodissociation of diatomic oxygen molecules from solar photons having a wavelength less than or equal to 2430A. Spacecraft in low-Earth orbit collide with atomic oxygen in the 3P ground state at impact energies of approximately 4.2 to 4.5 eV. As a consequence, organic materials previously used for high altitude geosynchronous spacecraft are severely oxidized in the low-Earth orbital environment. The evaluation of materials durability to atomic oxygen requires ground simulation of this environment to cost effectively screen materials for durability. Directed broad beam oxygen sources are necessary to evaluate potential spacecraft materials performance before and after exposure to the simulated low-Earth orbital environment. This paper presents a description of a low energy, broad oxygen ion beam source used to simulate the low-Earth orbital atomic oxygen environment. The results of materials interaction with this beam and comparison with actual in-space tests of the same meterials will be discussed. Resulting surface morphologies appear to closely replicate those observed in space tests

Steady-State Vacuum Ultraviolet Exposure Facility With Automated Lamp Calibration and Sample Positioning Fabricated

The Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) will be placed in an orbit that will subject it to constant solar radiation during its planned 10-year mission. A sunshield will be necessary to passively cool the telescope, protecting it from the Sun s energy and assuring proper operating temperatures for the telescope s instruments. This sunshield will be composed of metalized polymer multilayer insulation with an outer polymer membrane (12 to 25 mm in thickness) that will be metalized on the back to assure maximum reflectance of sunlight. The sunshield must maintain mechanical integrity and optical properties for the full 10 years. This durability requirement is most challenging for the outermost, constantly solar-facing polymer membrane of the sunshield. One of the potential threats to the membrane material s durability is from vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) radiation in wavelengths below 200 nm. Such radiation can be absorbed in the bulk of these thin polymer membrane materials and degrade the polymer s optical and mechanical properties. So that a suitable membrane material can be selected that demonstrates durability to solar VUV radiation, ground-based testing of candidate materials must be conducted to simulate the total 10- year VUV exposure expected during the Next Generation Space Telescope mission. The Steady State Vacuum Ultraviolet exposure facility was designed and fabricated at the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field to provide unattended 24-hr exposure of candidate materials to VUV radiation of 3 to 5 times the Sun s intensity in the wavelength range of 115 to 200 nm. The facility s chamber, which maintains a pressure of approximately 5 10(exp -6) torr, is divided into three individual exposure cells, each with a separate VUV source and sample-positioning mechanism. The three test cells are separated by a water-cooled copper shield plate assembly to minimize thermal effects from adjacent test cells. Part of the interior sample positioning mechanism of one test cell is shown in the illustration. Of primary concern in VUV exposure is the maintenance of constant measured radiation intensity so that the sample s total exposure can be determined in equivalent Sun hours. This is complicated by the fact that a VUV lamp s intensity degrades over time, necessitating a decrease in the distance between the test samples and the lamp. The facility overcomes this challenge by periodically measuring the lamp s intensity with a cesium-iodide phototube and adjusting the sample distance as required to maintain constant exposure intensity. Sample positioning and periodic phototube location under the lamp are both achieved by a single lead-screw assembly. The lamps can be isolated from the main vacuum chamber for cleaning or replacement so that samples are not exposed to the atmosphere during a test

Large-Area Atomic Oxygen Facility Used to Clean Fire-Damaged Artwork

In addition to completely destroying artwork, fires in museums and public buildings can soil a displayed artwork with so much accumulated soot that it can no longer be used for study or be enjoyed by the public. In situations where the surface has not undergone extensive charring or melting, restoration can be attempted. However, soot deposits can be very difficult to remove from some types of painted surfaces, particularly when the paint is fragile or flaking or when the top surface of the paint binder has been damaged. Restoration typically involves the use of organic solvents to clean the surface, but these solvents may cause the paint layers to swell or leach out. Also, immersion of the surface or swabbing during solvent cleaning may move or remove pigment through mechanical contact, especially if the fire damage extends into the paint binder. A noncontact technique of removing organic deposits from surfaces was developed out of NASA research on the effects of oxygen atoms on various materials. Atomic oxygen is present in the atmosphere surrounding the Earth at the altitudes where satellites typically orbit. It can react chemically with surface coatings or deposits that contain carbon. In the reaction, the carbon is converted to carbon monoxide and some carbon dioxide. Water vapor is also a byproduct of the reaction if the surface contains carbon-hydrogen bonds. To study this reaction, NASA developed Earth-based facilities to produce atomic oxygen for material exposure and testing. A vacuum facility designed and built by the Electro-Physics Branch of the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field to provide atomic oxygen over a large area for studying reactions in low Earth orbit has been used to successfully clean several full-size paintings. (This facility can accommodate paintings up to 1.5 by 2.1 m. The atomic oxygen plasma is produced between two large parallel aluminum plates using a radiofrequency power source operating at roughly 400 W. Atomic oxygen is generated uniformly over this area at an operating pressure of 1 to 5 mtorr

Avian Influenza, an International Concern

The spread of the virulent highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N1 Asian strain (HPAI H5N1) throughout Asia and into Europe and Africa since 2004 has resulted in the loss of millions of domestic birds and caused concern about its zoonotic potential. Though the significance of wild birds in the transmission of HPAI H5N1 remains unclear, wild birds are known to be the source of some outbreaks and can serve as an important sentinel for introduction of the virus to new areas due to expansive migration movements. The comprehensive HPAI H5N1 surveillance program, established in 2006 by the USDA and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the states and tribes, monitors both wild and domestic bird populations to ensure the earliest detection of HPAI H5N1 incursion into the United States. Montana is a priority state in nationwide surveillance because it borders Canada and is divided by the Pacific and Central Flyways. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted AI surveillance in Montana during the last 4 yrs using multiple sampling strategies to optimize the chance of detecting HPAI H5N1. Surveillance targets specific species spatially distributed across the state and temporally distributed across the sampling period. The primary emphasis on wild populations included systematic transects on populations of high priority for morbidity and mortality, along with opportunistically found dead birds, as well as the collection of swab samples from live and hunter-harvested waterfowl. Whereas low pathogenic avian influenza was found in samples each year as expected, no sample tested positive for HPAI H5N1

Associations between an Obesity Related Genetic Variant (FTO rs9939609) and Prostate Cancer Risk

Observational studies suggest that obese men have a lower risk of incident prostate cancer, but an increased risk of advanced and fatal cancers. These observations could be due to confounding, detection bias, or a biological effect of obesity. Genetic studies are less susceptible to confounding than observational epidemiology and can suggest how associations between phenotypes (such as obesity) and diseases arise. To determine whether the associations between obesity and prostate cancer are causal, we conducted a genetic association study of the relationship between a single nucleotide polymorphism known to be associated with obesity (FTO rs9939609) and prostate cancer. Data are from a population-based sample of 1550 screen-detected prostate cancers, 1815 age- and general practice matched controls with unrestricted prostate specific antigen (PSA) values and 1175 low-PSA controls (PSA <0.5 ng/ml). The rs9939609 A allele, which was associated with higher BMI in the sample, was inversely associated with overall (odds ratio (OR) versus all controls  = 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–1.02 p = 0.12 per allele) and low-grade (OR = 0.90; 0.81–0.99 p = 0.03 per allele) prostate cancer risk, but positively associated with high-grade cancer among cases (OR high- versus low-grade cancer  = 1.16; 0.99–1.37 p = 0.07 per allele). Although evidence for these effects was weak, they are consistent with observational data based on BMI phenotypes and suggest that the observed association between obesity and prostate cancer is not due to confounding. Further research should confirm these findings, extend them to other BMI-related genetic variants and determine whether they are due to detection bias or obesity-related hormonal changes

A Synoptical Classification of the Bivalvia (Mollusca)

The following classification summarizes the suprageneric taxono-my of the Bivalvia for the upcoming revision of the Bivalvia volumes of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N. The development of this classification began with Carter (1990a), Campbell, Hoeks-tra, and Carter (1995, 1998), Campbell (2000, 2003), and Carter, Campbell, and Campbell (2000, 2006), who, with assistance from the United States National Science Foundation, conducted large-scale morphological phylogenetic analyses of mostly Paleozoic bivalves, as well as molecular phylogenetic analyses of living bivalves. Dur-ing the past several years, their initial phylogenetic framework has been revised and greatly expanded through collaboration with many students of bivalve biology and paleontology, many of whom are coauthors. During this process, all available sources of phylogenetic information, including molecular, anatomical, shell morphological, shell microstructural, bio- and paleobiogeographic as well as strati-graphic, have been integrated into the classification. The more recent sources of phylogenetic information include, but are not limited to, Carter (1990a), Malchus (1990), J. Schneider (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2002), T. Waller (1998), Hautmann (1999, 2001a, 2001b), Giribet and Wheeler (2002), Giribet and Distel (2003), Dreyer, Steiner, and Harper (2003), Matsumoto (2003), Harper, Dreyer, and Steiner (2006), Kappner and Bieler (2006), Mikkelsen and others (2006), Neulinger and others (2006), Taylor and Glover (2006), Kříž (2007), B. Morton (2007), Taylor, Williams, and Glover (2007), Taylor and others (2007), Giribet (2008), and Kirkendale (2009). This work has also benefited from the nomenclator of bivalve families by Bouchet and Rocroi (2010) and its accompanying classification by Bieler, Carter, and Coan (2010).This classification strives to indicate the most likely phylogenetic position for each taxon. Uncertainty is indicated by a question mark before the name of the taxon. Many of the higher taxa continue to undergo major taxonomic revision. This is especially true for the superfamilies Sphaerioidea and Veneroidea, and the orders Pectinida and Unionida. Because of this state of flux, some parts of the clas-sification represent a compromise between opposing points of view. Placement of the Trigonioidoidea is especially problematic. This Mesozoic superfamily has traditionally been placed in the order Unionida, as a possible derivative of the superfamily Unionoidea (see Cox, 1952; Sha, 1992, 1993; Gu, 1998; Guo, 1998; Bieler, Carter, & Coan, 2010). However, Chen Jin-hua (2009) summarized evi-dence that Trigonioidoidea was derived instead from the superfamily Trigonioidea. Arguments for these alternatives appear equally strong, so we presently list the Trigonioidoidea, with question, under both the Trigoniida and Unionida, with the contents of the superfamily indicated under the Trigoniida.Fil: Carter, Joseph G.. University of North Carolina; Estados UnidosFil: Altaba, Cristian R.. Universidad de las Islas Baleares; EspañaFil: Anderson, Laurie C.. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology; Estados UnidosFil: Araujo, Rafael. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales; EspañaFil: Biakov, Alexander S.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Bogan, Arthur E.. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Campbell, David. Paleontological Research Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Campbell, Matthew. Charleston Southern University; Estados UnidosFil: Chen, Jin Hua. Chinese Academy of Sciences. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology; República de ChinaFil: Cope, John C. W.. National Museum of Wales. Department of Geology; Reino UnidoFil: Delvene, Graciela. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España; EspañaFil: Dijkstra, Henk H.. Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity; Países BajosFil: Fang, Zong Jie. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Gardner, Ronald N.. No especifica;Fil: Gavrilova, Vera A.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Goncharova, Irina A.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Harries, Peter J.. University of South Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Hartman, Joseph H.. University of North Dakota; Estados UnidosFil: Hautmann, Michael. Paläontologisches Institut und Museum; SuizaFil: Hoeh, Walter R.. Kent State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hylleberg, Jorgen. Institute of Biology; DinamarcaFil: Jiang, Bao Yu. Nanjing University; República de ChinaFil: Johnston, Paul. Mount Royal University; CanadáFil: Kirkendale, Lisa. University Of Wollongong; AustraliaFil: Kleemann, Karl. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: Koppka, Jens. Office de la Culture. Section d’Archéologie et Paléontologie; SuizaFil: Kříž, Jiří. Czech Geological Survey. Department of Sedimentary Formations. Lower Palaeozoic Section; República ChecaFil: Machado, Deusana. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Malchus, Nikolaus. Institut Català de Paleontologia; EspañaFil: Márquez Aliaga, Ana. Universidad de Valencia; EspañaFil: Masse, Jean Pierre. Universite de Provence; FranciaFil: McRoberts, Christopher A.. State University of New York at Cortland. Department of Geology; Estados UnidosFil: Middelfart, Peter U.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Mitchell, Simon. The University of the West Indies at Mona; JamaicaFil: Nevesskaja, Lidiya A.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Özer, Sacit. Dokuz Eylül University; TurquíaFil: Pojeta, John Jr.. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Polubotko, Inga V.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Pons, Jose Maria. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Popov, Sergey. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Sanchez, Teresa Maria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Sartori, André F.. Field Museum of National History; Estados UnidosFil: Scott, Robert W.. Precision Stratigraphy Associates; Estados UnidosFil: Sey, Irina I.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Signorelli, Javier Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Silantiev, Vladimir V.. Kazan Federal University; RusiaFil: Skelton, Peter W.. Open University. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences; Reino UnidoFil: Steuber, Thomas. The Petroleum Institute; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Waterhouse, J. Bruce. No especifica;Fil: Wingard, G. Lynn. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Yancey, Thomas. Texas A&M University; Estados Unido

Selected isotope ratio measurements of light metallic elements (Li, Mg, Ca, and Cu) by multiple collector ICP-MS

The unique capabilities of multiple collector inductively coupled mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) for high precision isotope ratio measurements in light elements as Li, Mg, Ca, and Cu are reviewed in this paper. These elements have been intensively studied at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) and other laboratories over the past few years, and the methods used to obtain high precision isotope analyses are discussed in detail. The scientific study of isotopic fractionation of these elements is significant for achieving a better understanding of geochemical and biochemical processes in nature and the environment

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Development of a Standardized Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Effort for a Unified Approach

AbstractBackgroundThere are no universally monitored outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer, making it challenging to compare health outcomes between populations.ObjectiveWe sought to develop a standard set of outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer to follow during routine clinical care.Design, setting, and participantsThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled a multidisciplinary working group to develop the set.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus regarding the outcomes, measures, and case mix factors included.Results and limitationsThe 25 members of the multidisciplinary international working group represented academic and nonacademic centers, registries, and patients. Recognizing the heterogeneity of men with advanced prostate cancer, the group defined the scope as men with all stages of incurable prostate cancer (metastatic and biochemical recurrence ineligible for further curative therapy). We defined outcomes important to all men, such as overall survival, and measures specific to subgroups, such as time to metastasis. Measures gathered from clinical data include measures of disease control. We also identified patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as degree of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction, mood symptoms, and pain control.ConclusionsThe international multidisciplinary group identified clinical data and PROMs that serve as a basis for international health outcome comparisons and quality-of-care assessments. The set will be revised annually.Patient summaryOur international group has recommended a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes to be followed during routine care for all men with advanced prostate cancer

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]