Issue Section:
Errata
Topics:
Biomechanical engineering, Computer simulation, Vessels
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. 10 
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.
View largeDownload slide

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.

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.
View largeDownload slide

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.

Close modal
. 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.
View Original Article
Copyright © 2013 by ASME