top of page


Public·108 members
Plato Grishin
Plato Grishin


1907, "sealed container holding a dose of medicine," from French ampul (1886), from Latin ampulla "flask, vial" (see ampoule). A modern borrowing of the word represented by Middle English ampoule. Related: Ampullaceous.


"small bottle or flask," especially one used for holy liquids, c. 1200, from Old French ampole "flask, vial," from Latin ampulla "small globular flask or bottle," which is of uncertain origin, perhaps a contracted form of amphora. Superseded in English by the form ampulla and later ampul.

Glass particle contamination is of ongoing concern, with patients who receive medication parenterally, such as intravenously under hospital care, at greater risk of receiving glass particulates when medication is aspirated.[10] A 2016 study of 180 ampoules found 19,473 glass particles in aspirated fluids, with filtering only reducing the mean from 114 to 89 particles per ampoule. Glass particle contamination of an ampule occurred with all intravenous injection methods.[11]

Last fall, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) sent a letter to member hospitals, calling for deployment of EPINEPHrine autoinjectors as a way to avoid wrong dose and wrong route errors (intravenous [IV] instead of IM) when ampuls or vials are used for severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis. The concern with 1 mg ampuls or vials of EPINEPHrine is that the contents must be drawn into a syringe. Unfortunately, during a stressful emergency situation, this has sometimes led to the erroneous administration of the full 1 mg dose IV, which could prove harmful to some patients. In a review of more than 600 cases reported to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System, wrong route errors involving IV administration instead of IM or subcutaneous injection were responsible for 25.4% of all EPINEPHrine adverse events and 63.3% of the harmful events.1

For health systems that use these and store them in numerous locations throughout their organization, hundreds of thousands of dollars may be needed annually to stock these devices, which can significantly affect the budget. In addition, staff training and inventory needs have to be considerable when determining the cost. EPINEPHrine autoinjectors have a shelf life of only 12-18 months. Thus, they may not be used prior to expiration, resulting in wasted inventory and increases in cost. Special attention is also needed for organizations that may stock the autoinjectors in ADCs. The expiration date should be closely monitored and stock rotated on a regular basis. Our attention was drawn recently to an emergency medical service in Kings County, Washington, that did away with autoinjectors due to the high cost, replacing them with an anaphylaxis kit. They reasoned that an ampul or vial of EPINEPHrine 1 mg would cost about $1.25. Add in a syringe, alcohol wipe, needle, and so on, the savings are still significant. Some hospitals have taken the same course of action.

Deciding between the autoinjector or 1 mg vial or ampul remains a tough choice. Some hospitals have decided that autoinjector manufacturers have priced themselves out of the market, making it difficult to allow use in all areas of the hospital. Instead, they have decided to stock 1 mg ampuls or vials, or for safety, they have prepared kits containing a 1 mg EPINEPHrine ampul or vial along with a syringe, needle, label with proper dose for IM injection, a warning not to administer the entire vial, and any other essential components. Still, we agree with NCCN that the presence of a vial or ampul of EPINEPHrine in the wrong hands invites accidental IV injection when the patient has an IV line established. So, an EPINEPHrine autoinjector is appealing as a properly labeled unit dose that can be employed within seconds to treat the emergency, and the contents cannot be administered IV.

A homeopathic ampul treatment is an easy supplement to your everyday life. An ampul treatment consists of small glass bottles with the finest natural medicine inside. You drink the contents, keep it in your mouth for a moment to make your mucous membranes absorb it, and then swallow the liquid afterwards (it tastes like water with very little salt) 5 days a week, with a break during the weekend. It is a very simple and easy solution!

1 month of ampul treatment: 140 $ + postage3 months of ampul treatment: 422 $ + postage(can be paid in 3 installments)6 months of ampul treatment: Normally 836 $ Now 792 $ (save the postage)(can be paid in 6 installments)(Write us if you are pregnant. If you are breast-feeding please note that in your e-mail. If you want to buy an ampoule treatment for your animal click here.Have you already purchased ampoules? Then find instructions her: guidance to take ampoules.

Harcadıkları enerji miktarına göre sınıflandırılan ampullerin normal tasarıma sahip olan türleri ortalama 60 watt enerji tüketir. Tasarruf ampulü adı altında satışa sunulan beyaz ışıklı modeller, harcadıkları 16 watt ile büyük ilgi görür. Sık kullanılan alanlarda tercih edilen tasarruf ampülleri, ortama yoğun bir parlaklık kazandırabilir. Çeşitli alanlarda kullanılan ve yaydığı parlak renkli ışıklarla tercih sebebi olan LED ışıklar, sadece 9 watt enerji harcar. Kullanılan odanın etkili şekilde aydınlatılabilmesi için metrekare hesabı yapılarak yeterli güce sahip ürün kullanılmalıdır. Hangi ampulün kaç watt olduğunu etiket üzerinden rahatlıkla kontrol edebilirsiniz.

Ortamın genişliği ve yüksekliği esas alınarak seçilen tasarruflu ampul bütçelere dost bir kullanım imkanı da verir. Bu açıdan da ürün seçimi son derece önemlidir. Piyasada çok sayıda tasarruflu ampul seçeneği vardır. Bu noktada mekanın metrekaresine uygun watt ve lümen gücüne sahip ürünlerin incelenmesi gerekir. Ardından da sıcaklık rengine karar verip seçim aşamasına geçilebilir. Bu tip detaylar ile cazip modellere ulaşmak mümkün olur.

Şu an günümüzdeki ampullerin kimileri 2 yıl, kimileri 8 yıl dayanabilir.[kaynak belirtilmeli] Thomas Edison'in ampulü icat etmesinden sonra aydınlatma teknolojisine çok büyük adım atılmıştır. Elektrik ile çalışır.

The arsphenamine license, dated June 16, 1919, was one of four licenses issued contemporaneously; the other three being ancillary to the first and concerning respectively the "ingredient" or arsphenamine-base patent, the "ampul" patent, covering a sealed ampul for packaging arsphenamine, and the "administering" patent, covering a solution for hypodermic injections of arsphenamine. *477 Each of these four licensing agreements provided that the aggregate royalty to be paid by the licensee under all four should be 5 per cent. of the gross sums received by the licensee from the sale of the product arsphenamine. The patent for this product had the latest expiration of any of the patents, namely, November 10, 1931. Each of the four licenses ran "for the term of the patent." For convenience the four licenses will be referred to as the group licenses.

Although separate in execution and delivery, the defendant contends that the group licenses, the second license and the third license should be read as constituting a single contract and obligating the plaintiff to pay royalties on sales of neoarsphenamine and sulfarsphenamine until the expiration of the arsphenamine patent, that is, until November 10, 1931. There is no language in the third license on which to base this contention except the words "licensed patents." A printed form was used in the execution of this license. The employment of the words "licensed patents" is without significance since the printed form defines these words as referring to the patents enumerated in Schedule A, and the schedule lists only the one patent for sulfarsphenamine. The argument with respect to the second license is on somewhat firmer ground, since the neoarsphenamine license does contain references to the group licenses. But the references are not such as to lead to the conclusion asserted. The second paragraph recites merely that "this license is one of five, four of which * * have heretofore been issued," and that the purpose of "this license" is to permit the licensee to make, use and sell neoarsphenamine, and to use in connection therewith, "under the licenses already issued" the packing ampul and the administering solution. The third paragraph provides that the royalty of 5 per cent. on the licensee's gross sales of neoarsphenamine shall be paid "during the continuance of this license" at the time and in the manner as provided in the arsphenamine license. The latter provided for payment within 30 days after January 1st and July 1st in each year. The fourth paragraph states that all the provisions and conditions of the group licenses are binding upon "the licensee herein" and "shall have the same force and effect as if bodily incorporated herein." The purpose of this clause was plainly to incorporate by reference the provisions relating to the keeping of books, the furnishing of information, the cancellation of the license, and similar matters which were embodied in the arsphenamine license but not in the neoarsphenamine license. These were relatively minor matters which might appropriately be incorporated in a later license by reference to a prior one; but with respect to the essential matters of duration and royalty the neoarsphenamine license contained its own provisions complete in themselves. We can see no justifiable reason for reading the incorporation clause as overriding the express provision that the royalty shall be paid "during the continuance of this license," which was granted "for the term of the patent unless sooner terminated."

The defendant argues that we should adopt its contention that the plaintiff was bound to pay the royalties in suit because the plaintiff used one or more of the patents of the group licenses in making, using *478 and selling neoarsphenamine and sulfarsphenamine. The stipulation of facts denies this unequivocally with respect to "the products or processes covered by patent No. 1,116,398." This disposes of the argument in so far as it relates to use of the arsphenamine patent. Since the "ingredient" or arsphenamine-base patent expired first of all, March 7, 1928, it cannot extend the plaintiff's duty to pay royalties under patents which expired later. The ampul patent and the "administering" or solution patent expired December 16, 1930, and it is urged that since one or both of these patents were used in marketing neoarsphenamine and sulfarsphenamine, it must be inferred that the plaintiff was intended to pay royalties at least until that date, for otherwise it would be an infringer. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


  • Abbi Ethelred
  • Hollie Hodge
    Hollie Hodge
  • Adhavi Joshi
    Adhavi Joshi
  • Ý Như
    Ý Như
  • nhi linh
    nhi linh
bottom of page