Overall factor

A popular overall factor refinement, known as the Hand factor approach, uses a different factor to estimate overall costs for each class of equipment to cover all labor field materials, eg, piping, insulation, electrical, foundations, stmctures, and finishes and indirect costs, but not contingencies. Hand factors range from 4 for fractionating towers down to 2.5 for miscellaneous equipment. 

Multiple-factor methods include the cost contributions for each given activity, which can be added together to give an overall factor. This factor can be used to multiply the total cost of dehvered equipment X (Ce(j)del lo produce an estimate of the total fixed-capital investment either for grass-roots or for battery-hmit plants. The costs may be divided into four groups ... 

The other factors mentioned come into play with the inherent mismatch that occurs when an overall factor must be appUed to correlate the flange-to-flange method. The correlation proposed in the code is based on work by Schultz [8] and was quite good for its day. When combined with modem calculation methods and equations of state, the philosophy is still valid. 

The discussion of materials selection factors is naturally divided into three parts (1) overall factors pertinent to selection of the composite material itself, (2) factors governing the selection of the fibers, and (3) factors essential to selection of the matrix system. Those three types of selection trade-offs will be described, followed by summary remarks on the process of selecting a suitable composite material. 

This paper organizes some of the how and why of flexible package-food product interactions by discussing a few specific examples of food packaging development, as well as some overall factors of packaging material application. 

This approach discriminates factors to a large extent in order to distinguish between the single adjustments and to separate best estimates from uncertainty. It should be noted that the ECETOC approach does not mention the establishment of an overall factor and although they mention that all discriminated aspects introduce uncertainties, they do not give guidance on how to account for this. It could also be questioned here whether a nonscientific factor should be discussed in a scientific risk assessment. 

Similarly to the previous ECETOC approach, this revised approach does not mention the establishment of an overall factor. 

TNO has stated that principally the overall factor is established by multiplication of the separate factors unless the data indicate another method to be used (Hakkert et al. 1996). They also noted that in practice it is not possible to distinguish all the separate assessment factors and some factors are not independent of each other. Therefore, straightforward multiplication may lead to unreasonably high factors, and discussion and weighing of individual factors are essential to establish a reliable and justifiable overall assessment factor. 

In conclusion, discussion and weighing of the individual assessment factors are essential in order to establish a rehable and justifiable overall assessment factor, and the possible overlap in the individual assessment factors should be recognized in the justification for the overall factor. If an unreasonable high total factor (in the order of 10,000) is established, then the resulting tolerable intake is considered to be too imprecise, and it should be realized that the database is too limited in order to derive a tolerable intake. 

The half-lives of the powerful carcinogens increase from 200 min for BaP to >300 days for benzo[6]fluo-ranthene and >800 days for indeno[l,2,3-ot]pyrene, with the relative reactivities decreasing from 1100 to <0.5 and <0.2, respectively, an overall factor of -5500. 

The coefficients of through take the form (with an appropriate choice of k, and ignoring an overall factor of (-l) ) ... 

Combining these factors for all propagators of a given polymer line we find an overall factor... 

For z0 we simply set +1 for each measurement this means that the overall factor gives each measurement the constant weightj+1 f. To obtain the interaction column we multiply the values (+1 or 1) of the respective factor columns ... 

Over the period of approximately 40 years as illustrated in Table 2.10, higher performance output was attained in engines by virtue of design criteria and the availability of enhanced lubricant additives and base fluid technologies (Copan and Richardson, 1992). These achievements have been accomplished with reduced quantities of lubricant required for maintenance and operation. Although the lubricant is a minor overall factor in vehicle operating costs, the investment in technology development has resulted in reduced oil waste and oil consumption, with substantially enhanced vehicle durability. 

In the prospective context, a common and simple way to handle uncertainty is the use of uncertainty factors (UFs). These may suffice to derive a safe concentration of a substance associated to a predefined protection level to be used generically — that is, it is safe even in worst-case conditions. The greater the uncertainty in models or data for the extrapolations, the larger the overall UF in the lower tiers. The UF is applied to the risk assessment to account for unquantified uncertainties. In some cases, the factor depends on the amount of available data, or UFs per extrapolation are multiplied to provide the final factor (e.g., 10 x 10 x 10 as the UF for 3 assessment steps yields an overall factor of 1000). 

Approximate values for the correction factor are given in Table 5.1. For gas mixtures (/-components), an overall factor can be obtained ... 

Analyses of cyclic operations can be carried out conveniently by using the time for one cycle as a basis. When this is done, relationships similar to the following can be d eloped to express overall factors, such as total annual cost or annual rate of production ... 

Why is the safety factor too This factor takes into account the fact that the safety evaluation is carried out in animals and so there may be differences from humans, who could be more sensitive. This is given a factor of 10. Secondly, the safety factor takes into account the fact that humans vary in their sensitivity some people are more or less sensitive to chemicals than others. This is also given a factor of 10, and hence the overall factor is too (10 X 10). Retrospective research of available data in humans and animals has confirmed and refined the basis for these factors (each factor can be subdivided). Sometimes, for example when the data is less reliable, larger safety factors may be used (1,000). 

The intensity of an XPS peak (Ia) is a strong function of (i) the incoming photon flux, (ii) the concentration of the given element, (hi) its photoionization cross-section (which is excitation-energy dependent), (iv) the mean free path of the emitted photoelectron, and (v) further instrumental parameters (such as photoelectron collection and detection efficiency). By defining atomic sensitivity factors (S, as an overall factor summing up the effects of iii-v), the atom fraction of any element in a sample can be calculated as ... 

The overall /-factors for various kinds of windows and skylights arc evaluated using computer simulations and laboratory testing for winter design conditions representative values arc given in Table 9-6. Test data may provide more accurate information for specific products and should be preferred when available. However, the values listed in the table can be used to obtain satisfactory results under various conditions in the absence of product-specific data. The /-factor of a fenestration product that differs... 

Determine the overall (/-factor for a double-door-type, wood-framed double.>- pane window with metal spacers, and compare your result to the value listed in ti Table 9-6, The overall dimensions of the v/indow are 1.80 m x 2.00 m, and b the dimensions of each glazing are 1.72 m x 0.94 m (Fig. 9-41). g... 

SOLUTION The overall (/ factor for a double-door type window is to be determined, and the result is to be compared to the tabulated value. 

Overall, factors that might affect the adsorption of actives on the carrier surface include surface properties, moisture content, the type and particle size/shape of carriers and actives, as well as the mixing ratio of actives and carriers. Pharmaceutical processes (i.e., milling and granulation) could affect the adsorption process by altering carrier and active properties (i.e., surface properties, size, and shape), hence the characteristics of blending and the quality of the final dosage form. 

The polarization factor arises from partial polarization of the electromagnetic wave after scattering. Considering the orientation of the electric vector, the partially polarized beam can be represented by two components one has its amplitude parallel (Ay) to the goniometer axis and another has the amplitude perpendicular (Ax) to the same axis. The diffracted intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude and the two projections of the partially polarized beam on the diffracted wavevector are proportional to 1 for (A ) and cos 20 for (Ax). Thus, partial polarization after scattering yields the following overall factor (also see Thomson equation in the footnote on page 140) ... 

Following Deutsch and Garrison [230] we are interested (in such an interaction picture) in an initial state that does not vary any more, or does so that only its unimportant overall factor varies. The amplitude of its displacement is given by the classical solution being of the same property, namely, a solution of the classical equations (corresponding to) (159), from which the differential operator S/St and its factor have been left out, let us say P7(z, t) - Aj(z), j = 1,2 independent of t. We are therefore concerned with the two-held squeezed vacuum state which is an eigenstate... 

Verification of Uncertainty Factors. As summarized in several publications, uncertainty factors are currently recommended to estimate acceptable intakes for systemic toxicants (1,13,18). The selection of these factors in general reflects the uncertainty inherent with the use of different human or animal toxicity data (i.e., the weight of evidence plays a major role in the selection of uncertainty factors). For example, an uncertainty factor of less than 10 and perhaps even 1 may be used to estimate an ADI if sufficient data of chronic duration are available on a chemical s critical toxic effect in a known sensitive human population. That is to say that this ideal data base is sufficiently predictive of the population threshold dose therefore, uncertainty factors are not warranted. An overall uncertainty factor of 10 might be used to estimate an acceptable intake based on chronic human toxicity data and would reflect the expected intraspecies variability to the adverse effects of a chemical in the absence of chemical-specific data. An overall uncertainty factor of 100 might be used to estimate ADIs with sufficient chronic animal toxicity data this would reflect the expected intra- and interspecies variability in lieu of chemical-specific data. However, this overall factor of 100 might be used with subchronic human data in this case the 100-fold factor would reflect intraspecies variability and a subchronic exposure extrapolation. 

---