Aerodynamic performance of a bypass engine with fan nozzle exit area change by warped chevrons

Variation of the bypass nozzle exit area enables optimization of the turbofan engine operating cycle over a wider range of operational conditions resulting in improved thrust and/or fuel consumption. Two mechanisms for varying the nozzle area have been investigated. The first uses an array of chevrons which when closed, form a full body of revolution and when warped/curved, increase the exit area while forming a serrated trailing edge. The second technique incorporates an axially translating section of the nacelle shroud and uses the change in the nozzle boat-tail radial location with the axial location as a means to vary the nozzle exit area. To analyse the effects on a typical rotor/stator stage, computational fluid dynamics simulations of the NASA Rotor 67, Stator 67A stage integrated into a custom-built nacelle were performed. Nozzles with 8, 12, and 16 chevrons were simulated to evaluate the impact of the variation in geometry upon the nacelle wake and local forces. Gross thrust of the nacelle and the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) variation through the wake is compared. The chevron nozzle attains a nearly 2 per cent maximum thrust improvement over the translating nozzle technique. The chevron nozzle also has significantly lower (nearly 8 per cent) peak TKE levels in the jet plume.

Confirmatory method for the determination of various acetylgestagens in animal kidney fat using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

A confirmatory method has been developed and validated that allows for the simultaneous detection of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), megestrol acetate (MGA), melengestrol acetate (MLA), chlormadinone acetate (CMA) and delmadinone acetate (DMA) in animal kidney fat using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The compounds were extracted from kidney fat using acetonitrile, defatted using a hexane wash and subsequent saponification. Extracts were then purified on Isolute CN solid-phase extraction cartridges and analysed by LC-MS/MS. The method was validated in animal kidney fat in accordance with the criteria defined in Commission Decision 2002/657/EC. The decision limit (CC) was calculated to be 0.12, 0.48, 0.40, 0.63 and 0.54 g kg-1, respectively, for MPA, MGA, MLA, DMA and CMA, with respective detection capability (CC) values of 0.20, 0.81, 0.68, 1.07 and 0.92 g kg-1. The measurement uncertainty of the method was estimated at 16, 16, 19, 27 and 26% for MPA, MGA, MLA, DMA and CMA, respectively. Fortifying kidney fat samples (n = 18) in three separate assays showed the accuracy of the method to be between 98 and 100%. The precision of the method, expressed as % RSD, for within-laboratory reproducibility at three levels of fortification (1, 1.5 and 2 g kg-1 for MPA, 5, 7.5 and 10 g kg-1 for MGA, MLA, DMA and CMA) was less than 5% for all analytes.

Association of dietary fat intakes with risk of esophageal and gastric cancer in the NIH-AARP diet and health study

The aim of our study was to investigate whether intakes of total fat and fat subtypes were associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), gastric cardia or gastric noncardia adenocarcinoma. From 1995–1996, dietary intake data was reported by 494,978 participants of the NIH-AARP cohort. The 630 EAC, 215 ESCC, 454 gastric cardia and 501 gastric noncardia adenocarcinomas accrued to the cohort. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association between the dietary fat intakes, whilst adjusting for potential confounders. Although apparent associations were observed in energy-adjusted models, multivariate adjustment attenuated results to null [e.g., EAC energy adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.66 (1.27–2.18) p for trend <0.01; EAC multivariate adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.17 (0.84–1.64) p for trend 5 0.58]. Similar patterns were also observed for fat subtypes [e.g., EAC saturated fat, energy adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.79 (1.37–2.33) p for trend <0.01; EAC saturated fat, multivariate adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.27 (0.91–1.78) p for trend 5 0.28]. However, in multivariate models an inverse association for polyunsaturated fat (continuous) was seen for EAC in subjects with a body mass index (BMI) in the normal range (18.5–<25 kg/m2) [HR (95% CI) 0.76 (0.63–0.92)], that was not present in overweight subjects [HR (95% CI) 1.04 (0.96–1.14)], or in unstratified analysis [HR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.90–1.05)]. p for interaction 5 0.02. Overall, we found null associations between the dietary fat intakes with esophageal or gastric cancer risk; although a protective effect of polyunsaturated fat intake was seen for EAC in subjects with a normal BMI.

Dietary fat and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As the number of breast cancer survivors increases worldwide(1), there is growing interest in the potential effect of dietary and lifestyle behaviours on overall prognosis. This is especially important as a cancer diagnosis is often referred to as a ‘teachable moment’(2) as patients seek information about lifestyle behaviours and so provision of evidence-based guidelines is essential. A positive association between dietary fat and breast cancer risk has been previously reported(3) but its influence upon breast cancer survival is unclear. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to critically appraise the literature published to date and to conduct meta-analyses to pool the results of studies to clarify the association between dietary fat and breast cancer survival.
Relevant articles published up to March 2011 that examined dietary fat and breast cancer recurrence and survival were identified from searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta-analyses were conducted in which we evaluated the risk of all-cause or breast cancer death in women in the highest compared with the lowest categories of total fat intake (g/d) and per 20 g increase in intake of dietary fat. Multivariable adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CI from individual studies were weighted and combined using a random-effects model to produce a pooled estimate.
Twelve prospective cohort studies that investigated total fat intake (g) and breast cancer survival, and/or provided information on fat intake from which a linear trend could be estimated, were included in the analyses. There was no evidence of a difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.14; 95% CI 0.86, 1.52; P=0.34) or all cause death (RR=1.73; 95% CI 0.82, 3.6; P=0.15) between the highest and lowest categories of total fat intake. Similarly, no significant difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.03; 95% CI 0.97, 1.10; P=0.261) or all-cause death (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.88, 1.28; P=0.52) was found per linear (20 g) increase in total fat intake.
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis do not support an association between total dietary fat and breast cancer survival. Further investigation into the effect of specific types of dietary fat and breast cancer survival is of interest.