The XRD Amorphous Component in John Klein Drill Fines at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars

Drill fines of mudstone (targets John Klein and Cumberland) from the Sheepbed unit at Yel-lowknife Bay were analyzed by MSL payload elements including the Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin), APXS (Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer), and Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instruments. CheMin XRD results show a variety of crystalline phases including feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, oxides, oxyhydroxides, sulfates, sulfides, a tri-octahedral smectite, and XRD amorphous material. The drill fines are distinctly different from corresponding analyses of the global soil (target Rocknest) in that the mudstone samples contained detectable phyllosilicate. Here we focus on John Klein and combine CheMin and APXS data to calculate the chemical composition and concentration of the amorphous component. The chemical composition of the amorphous plus smectite component for John Klein was calculated by subtracting the abundance-weighted chemical composition of the individual XRD crystalline components from the bulk composition of John Kline as measured by APXS. The chemical composition of individual crystalline components was determined either by stoichiometry (e.g., hematite and magnetite) or from their unit cell parameters (e.g., feldspar, olivine, and pyroxene). The chemical composition of the amorphous + smectite component (approx 71 wt.% of bulk sample) and bulk chemical composition are similar. In order to calculate the chemical composition of the amorphous component, a chemical composition for the tri-octahedral smectite must be assumed. We selected two tri-octahedral smectites with very different MgO/(FeO + Fe2O3) ratios (34 and 1.3 for SapCa1 and Griffithite, respectively). Relative to bulk sample, the concentration of amorphous and smectite components are 40 and 29 wt.% for SapCa1 and 33 and 36 wt.% for Griffithite. The amount of smectite was calculated by requiring the MgO concentration to be approx 0 wt.% in the amorphous component. Griffithite is the preferred smectite because the position of its 021 diffraction peak is similar to that reported for John Klein. In both cases, the amorphous component has low SiO2 and MgO and high FeO + Fe2O3, P2O5, and SO3 concentrations relative to bulk sample. The chemical composition of the bulk drill fines and XRD crystalline, smectite, and amorphous components implies alteration of an initially basaltic material under near neutral conditions (not acid sulfate), with the sulfate incorporated later as veins of CaSO4 injected into the mudstone

Costs of repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with different devices in a multicenter randomized trial

ObjectivePrior analysis in the Open vs Endovascular Repair Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study (CSP #498) demonstrated that survival, quality of life, and total health care costs are not significantly different between the open and endovascular methods of repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. The device is a major cost of this method of repair, and the objective of this study was to evaluate the costs of the device, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and total health care costs when different endograft systems are selected for the endovascular repair (EVR). Within each selected system, EVR costs are compared with open repair costs.MethodsThe study randomized 881 patients to open (n = 437) or EVR (n = 444). Device selection was recorded before randomization; therefore, open repair controls were matched to each device cohort. Data were excluded for two low-volume devices, implanted in only 13 individuals, leaving 423 control and 431 endovascular patients: 166 Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), 177 Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), and 88 AneuRx (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn). Mean device, hospitalization, and total health care costs from randomization to 2 years were compared. Health care utilization data were obtained from patients and national VA and Medicare data sources. VA costs were determined using methods previously developed by the VA Health Economics Resource Center. Non-VA costs were obtained from Medicare claims data and billing data from the patient's health care providers.ResultsImplant costs were 38% of initial hospitalization costs. Mean device (range, $13,600-$14,400), initial hospitalization (range, $34,800-$38,900), and total health care costs at 2 years in the endovascular (range, $72,400-$78,200) and open repair groups (range, $75,600-$82,100) were not significantly different among device systems. Differences between endovascular and corresponding open repair cohorts showed lower mean costs for EVR (range, $3200-$8300), but these were not statistically different.ConclusionsThe implant costs of endovascular aneurysm repair are substantial. When evaluating total health care system expenditures, there is large individual variability in costs, and there is no significant difference at 2 years among systems or when an individual system is compared with open repair