0
Errata

Erratum: “Confocal Image-Based Computational Modeling of Nitric Oxide Transport in a Rat Mesenteric Lymphatic Vessel” [Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 135(5), p. 051005] OPEN ACCESS

J Biomech Eng 135(11), 117001 (Sep 26, 2013) (1 page) Paper No: BIO-13-1326; doi: 10.1115/1.4025336 History: Received July 23, 2013; Revised July 29, 2013; Accepted August 17, 2013
FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE

After additional review and consideration of our recent publication, “Confocal Image-Based Computational Modeling of Nitric Oxide Transport in a Rat Mesenteric Lymphatic Vessel,” published in Volume 135 issue 5 of Journal of Biomechanical Engineering on April 24, 2013, the authors feel further clarification is needed to identify the meaning and origin of the results shown in Fig. 10Fig. 10

Comparison of steady versus unsteady normalized WSS and NO wall concentrations as a function of axial position along the line indicated in the lower figure. Data at three time points (A, B, and C; refer to Fig. 3 of the original manuscript) are shown, with time point C corresponding to peak reverse flow. Steady simulations were run at corresponding instantaneous flow rates, and wall shear stresses are normalized with respect to the instantaneous Poiseuille flow value. With forward flow (A and B), the steady and unsteady results agree to within 0.4% and 1.4% rms, respectively (sampled from the entire lymphangion surface). When flow is reversed, the differences are as much as 23% at specific locations, amounting to a 6.7% rms difference overall.

Grahic Jump LocationComparison of steady versus unsteady normalized WSS and NO wall concentrations as a function of axial position along the line indicated in the lower figure. Data at three time points (A, B, and C; refer to Fig. 3 of the original manuscript) are shown, with time point C corresponding to peak reverse flow. Steady simulations were run at corresponding instantaneous flow rates, and wall shear stresses are normalized with respect to the instantaneous Poiseuille flow value. With forward flow (A and B), the steady and unsteady results agree to within 0.4% and 1.4% rms, respectively (sampled from the entire lymphangion surface). When flow is reversed, the differences are as much as 23% at specific locations, amounting to a 6.7% rms difference overall.

. A revised figure with a new legend is attached. In the published manuscript, exact details of the location from which the data came were unfortunately excluded.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
View article in PDF format.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of steady versus unsteady normalized WSS and NO wall concentrations as a function of axial position along the line indicated in the lower figure. Data at three time points (A, B, and C; refer to Fig. 3 of the original manuscript) are shown, with time point C corresponding to peak reverse flow. Steady simulations were run at corresponding instantaneous flow rates, and wall shear stresses are normalized with respect to the instantaneous Poiseuille flow value. With forward flow (A and B), the steady and unsteady results agree to within 0.4% and 1.4% rms, respectively (sampled from the entire lymphangion surface). When flow is reversed, the differences are as much as 23% at specific locations, amounting to a 6.7% rms difference overall.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In