A simple, rapid, and accurate method is described for determining the concentration of alcohol in ethanol solutions using a density meter. With this instrument, the U-tube is suctionfilled with 0.7 mL sample, and the results are displayed on a digital read-out in specific gravity units. These values are converted by tables to per cent ethanol or proof. For samples under 40° proof, the instrument is standardized on air and water. When testing samples between 40 and 193° proof, the instrument is standardized on air and an ethanol standard having a proof within ±30° of the sample tested. Thus, large corrections for the nonlinearity of the plot of the specific gravity of ethanol vs. proof are avoided. An equation is presented that corrects for this non-linearity, and the result is obtained in per cent ethanol rather than specific gravity. Proof results obtained with this instrument are in good agreement with the values obtained by a pycnometer and/or refractometer for 1–190° proof ethanol-water solutions, vodkas, whiskeys, brandies, and liqueurs.

A vented urinary drainage system was compared to an otherwise identical non-vented system in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Among the 316 female patients evaluated there was a significant reduction in the rate of bacteriuria after 10 days using the vented system (66 per cent in the non-vented group versus 26 per cent in the vented group, p less than 0.05), while no significant difference could be demonstrated among the 190 male patients. We used urine hemoglobin as an indicator of mucosal trauma that might predispose to bacteriuria and no significant difference could be shown between the 2 drainage systems.

Hedonic-scale preference tests were run with four types of meat. Each one compared two nonirradiated ("good") samples with two irradiated ("poor")samples. Three effects were demonstrated: a) position effect (the later samples in the series were rated lower) ; h) contrast effect (serving "good" samples first lowered the ratings for "poor" samples); and c) convergence effect (serving "poor" samples first lowered the ratings for "good" samples).Contrast and convergence effects were shown to be independent of position effect.

No abstract