http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
김민지,김경일,김경택 한국항행학회 2023 韓國航行學會論文誌 Vol.27 No.5
본 연구는 항공기용 부품 및 장비품 중 치명성 부품인 수송류 항공기용 금속계 제동패드의 부품등제작자증명 및 부가형식증명을 위한 원 부품 등과 개발품의 설계 동일성 입증을 위한 역설계 절차를 도출하였다. 역설계 절차에 대한 규정은 우리나라의 경우 부품등제작자증명 지침에 의해 규정되며, 미국의 경우 AC No; 21.303-4에 규정되어 있다. 제동패드의 역설계 절차는 각 구성품별 샘플 수량, 치수공차, 기계적 물성 측정, 자재, 무게 및 부피특성 등의 동일성 확인 항목을 선정하여 각각의 세부 절차를 정의하였다. 아울러 우리나라 및 미국의 연방항공규정을 분석한 결과, 우리나라의 경우 수송류 항공기용 제동장치의 기술표준품 표준서 및 비행시험과 관련된 규정의 제정이 필요하다. This study derived a reverse engineering procedure for verifying the design identity of original parts and developed parts for PMA(Parts Manufacturer Approval) and STC(Supplemental Type Certificate) of metal brake pads for transport aircraft, which are critical parts among aircraft parts and equipment. In Korea, the regulations for reverse engineering procedures are regulated by the Parts Manufacturer Approval Guidelines, and in the United States, AC No. 21. 303-4. In the reverse engineering for the brake pad, the detailed procedures for each component were determined by selecting verification test items to confirm identity based on sample quantity, dimensional tolerance, mechanical property measurement, material, weight and volume characteristics for each component. In addition, as a result of analyzing the regulation of Korea and United States, in the case of Korea, it is necessary to establish technical standards for braking systems for transport aircraft and regulations related to flight tests.
Clinical Manifestations and Risk Factors of Anaphylaxis in Pollen–Food Allergy Syndrome
김민지,안영민,유영,김동규,양현종,박해심,이현종,김미애,정이영,김봉성,배우용,장안수,박양,고영일,이재천,임대현,김정희,이상민,김용민,전영준,김효열,김윤선,최정희 연세대학교의과대학 2019 Yonsei medical journal Vol.60 No.10
Purpose: Many studies have reported that pollen-food allergy syndrome (PFAS) can cause anaphylaxis. No comprehensive investigationsinto anaphylaxis in PFAS have been conducted, however. In this study, we investigated the clinical manifestations andrisk factors for anaphylaxis in PFAS in Korean patients with pollinosis. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from a nationwide cross-sectional study that previously reported on PFAS in Koreanpatients with pollinosis. Data from 273 patients with PFAS were collected, including demographics, list of culprit fruits and vegetables,and clinical manifestations of food allergy. We analyzed 27 anaphylaxis patients and compared them with patients withPFAS with oropharyngeal symptoms only (n=130). Results: The most common cause of anaphylaxis in PFAS was peanut (33.3%), apple (22.2%), walnut (22.2%), pine nut (18.5%),peach (14.8%), and ginseng (14.8%). Anaphylaxis was significantly associated with the strength of sensitization to alder, hazel,willow, poplar, timothy, and ragweed (p<0.05, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of atopic dermatitis[odds ratio (OR), 3.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–10.23; p=0.017]; sensitization to hazel (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.79–15.53;p=0.003), timothy (OR, 11.8; 95% CI, 2.70–51.64; p=0.001), or ragweed (OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.03–9.87; p=0.045); and the number ofculprit foods (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15–1.37; p<0.001) were related to the development of anaphylaxis in PFAS. Conclusion: The most common culprit foods causing anaphylaxis in PFAS were peanut and apple. The presence of atopic dermatitis;sensitization to hazel, timothy, or ragweed; and a greater number of culprit foods were risk factors for anaphylaxis in PFAS.