Simultaneous chemical reaction and distillation of formaldehyde

The thesis is concerned with the development and testing of a mathematical model of a distillation process in which the components react chemically. The formaldehyde-methanol-water system was selected and only the reversible reactions between formaldehyde and water giving methylene glycol and between formaldehyde and methanol producing hemiformal were assumed to occur under the distillation conditions. Accordingly the system has been treated as a five component system. The vapour-liquid equilibrium calculations were performed by solving iteratively the thermodynamic relationships expressing the phase equilibria with the stoichiometric equations expressing the chemical equilibria. Using optimisation techniques, the Wilson single parameters and Henry's constants were calculated for binary systems containing formaldehyde which was assumed to be a supercritical component whilst Wilson binary parameters were calculated for the remaining binary systems. Thus the phase equilibria for the formaldehyde system could be calculated using these parameters and good accuracy was obtained when calculated values were compared with experimental values. The distillation process was modelled using the mass and energy balance equations together with the phase equilibria calculations. The plate efficiencies were obtained from a modified A.I.Ch.E. Bubble Tray method. The resulting equations were solved by an iterative plate to plate calculation based on the Newton Raphson method. Experiments were carried out in a 76mm I.D., eight sieve plate distillation column and the results were compared with the mathematical model calculations. Overall, good agreement was obtained but some discrepancies were observed in the concentration profiles and these may have been caused by the effect of limited physical property data and a limited understanding of the reactions mechanism. The model equations were solved in the form of modular computer programs. Although they were written to describe the steady state distillation with simultaneous chemical reaction of the formaldehyde system, the approach used may be of wider application.

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.