Avoiding/correcting problems

The comparison with experiment can be made at several levels. The first, and most common, is in the comparison of derived quantities that are not directly measurable, for example, a set of average crystal coordinates or a diffusion constant. A comparison at this level is convenient in that the quantities involved describe directly the structure and dynamics of the system. However, the obtainment of these quantities, from experiment and/or simulation, may require approximation and model-dependent data analysis. For example, to obtain experimentally a set of average crystallographic coordinates, a physical model to interpret an electron density map must be imposed. To avoid these problems the comparison can be made at the level of the measured quantities themselves, such as diffraction intensities or dynamic structure factors. A comparison at this level still involves some approximation. For example, background corrections have to made in the experimental data reduction. However, fewer approximations are necessary for the structure and dynamics of the sample itself, and comparison with experiment is normally more direct. This approach requires a little more work on the part of the computer simulation team, because methods for calculating experimental intensities from simulation configurations must be developed. The comparisons made here are of experimentally measurable quantities. 

The blocking effect does not apply to the Pitot-static tube alone. Any sensor/instrument immersed into a duct has a similar effect the larger the sensor is, the greater the problem. For other types of instruments an analysis must be made, so as not to block large proportion of the duct cross-section with the meter. A good rule of thumb to avoid corrections is to keep the cross-section of the meter less than 5% of the duct cross-section. 

Matrix effect is a phrase normally used to describe the effect of some portion of a sample matrix that causes erroneous assay results if care is not taken to avoid the problem or correct for it by some mechanism. The most common matrix effects are those that result in ion suppression and subsequent false negative results. Ion enhancement may lead to false positive results.126 127 Several reports about matrix effects include suggestions on what can cause them and how to avoid them.126-147 While various ways to detect matrix effects have been reported, Matuszewski et al.140 described a clear way to measure the matrix effect (ME) for an analyte, recovery (RE) from the extraction procedure, and overall process efficiency (PE) of a procedure. Their method is to prepare three sets of samples and assay them using the planned HPLC/MS/MS method. The first set is the neat solution standards diluted into the mobile phase before injection to obtain the A results. The second set is the analyte spiked into the blank plasma extract (after extraction) to obtain the B results. The third set is the analyte spiked into the blank plasma before the extraction step (C results) these samples are extracted and assayed along with the two other sets. The three data sets allow for the following calculations ... 

CE has suffered from an assortment of common operator errors, which in turn have characterized the technique as not being robust. Like any analytical piece of equipment, there can be hardware and chemistry/operator issues. CE requires a keen background and user knowledge of the technique so as to avoid common problems that may initially be diagnosed as instrumental issues. For the early user of CE, the table below lists some common problems followed by their root causes and corrective actions. Following the suggested corrective actions should help the beginner get the maximum performance out of the CE instrumentation. 

This algorithm works in most circnmstances but it is slow, and the end condition is not unique. The 1- field narrows sharply near the optimum position, so that at certain intensity levels the intensity contonr is double-valued in that is, it is shaped like the Greek letter rather than a simple parabola. With some starting conditions the peak will be found on one of the two left-hand points of the rather than the correct right-hand point. An algorithm been developed by Loxley et al. which avoids this problem. Fewster s condition is... 

Another approach developed on the basis of an empirical compliance calibration, which was designed originally for isotropic brittle materials (Berry 1963), appears to avoid certain problems associated with correction factors. The compliance is given in the form of empirical equation... 

The next task was to form the C2-C3 aldol bond stereoselectively. However, asymmetric coupling of acetate derivatives to aldehydes is often accompanied by poor / -induction [89]. Moreover, the C3-C4 bond is particularly sensitive to retro-aldol reaction, especially under basic conditions. In the natural products, this was observed to be the main decomposition reaction. The first total syntheses of epothilones circumvented this problem by constructing this part of the molecule in an indirect manner, e.g., by using reduced forms at Cl or C5. We decided to employ our chromium-Reformatsky methodology, which avoids these problems and allows the direct use of reagents in the correct oxidation state. The non-basic reaction conditions, the intermediacy of a chromium(III) aldolate that is resistant to retro-aldol reaction, and the potential of a direct asymmetric carboxymethyl ( acetate ) transfer favor the use of this method [90]. 

This is referred as BO ansatz. This ansatz is taken as a variational trial function. Terms beyond the leading order in m/M are neglected m is the electronic and M is nuclear mass, respectively). The problem with expansion (4) is that functions /(r, R) contain except bound states also continuum function since it includes the centre of mass (COM) motion. Variation principle does not apply to continuum states. To avoid this problem we can separate COM motion. The remaining Hamiltonian for the relative motion of nuclei and electrons has then bound state solution. But there is a problem, because this separation mixes electronic with nuclear coordinates and also there is a question how to define molecule-fixed coordinate system. This is in detail discussed by Sutcliffe [5]. In the recent paper by Kutzelnigg [8] this problem is also discussed and it is shown how to derive adiabatic corrections using, as he called it, the Bom-Handy ansatz. There are few important steps to arrive at formula for a diabatic corrections. Firstly, one separates off COM motion. Secondly, (very important step) one does not specify the relative coordinates (which are to some extent arbitrary). In this way one arrives at relative Hamiltonian Hrd [8] with trial wavefunction If we make BO ansatz... 

It is dear, therefore, that as the atoms are pulled apart the Hartree-Fock MO solution does not go over to that of two neutral-free atoms H°H°, but instead goes over to a mixed configuration, schematically represented by [2H°H° + H+H" + H H+]. Since the energy cost for the ionic configuration is / — A = (13.6 — 0.8) eV = 12.8 eV, the Hartree-Fock MO solution dissociates incorrectly to +6.4 eV rather than zero (We have assumed the Hartree-Fock treatment of H is exact.) The Heitler-London VB solution avoids this problem by working with only the covalent configurations in the first square bracket of eqn (3.37), so that it dissodates correctly. 

Practically, the intetferograms are substracted in order to avoid some phase correction problems. If one is working with a room temperature triglycine sulfate (TGS) detector, the four-measurement experiments are not necessary to correct the background 150), whereas with a liquid nitrogen cooled HgCdTe detector, the background correction is necessary. 

High-level DAE software (e.g., Dassl) makes a time-step selection based on an estimate of the local truncation error, which depends on the difference between a predictor and a corrector step [13,46]. If the difference is too great, the time step is reduced. In the limit of At 0, the predictor is just the initial condition. For the simple linear problem illustrated here, the corrector will always converge to the correct solution y2 = 1, independent of the time step. However, if the initial condition is y2 1, then there is simply no time step for which the predictor and corrector values will be sufficiently close, and the error estimate will always fail. Based on this simple problem, it may seem like a straightforward task to build software that identifies and avoids the problem, and there is current research on the subject [13], The problem is that in highly nonlinear, coupled, problems the inconsistent initial conditions can be extremely difficult to identify and fix in a general way. 

Chemical Abstracts would name this as 8-phenyl-7-azabicyclo[4.2.01-octa-l,3,5,7-tetraene, which is unnecessarily complicated. Use of a replacement modification of a fusion name presents difficulties although the corresponding carbocycle should, in accord with IUPAC Rules, be named cyclobutabenzene, it is almost exclusively referred to in the literature as benzocyclobutene. Thus the name 2-phenyl-1-azacyclobuta benzene would be strictly correct, but 2-phenyl-1-azabenzocyclobutene is more in line with current usage. The fusion name based on azete avoids this problem. 

Airborne contamination is another possible contribution to the blank correction. Here one is chiefly concerned with sample contamination with the daughters of 222Rn, which have half-lives in the 30- to 40-min range. Steps that can be taken to avoid this problem include eschewing the use of suction filtration in chemical procedures, prefiltering of room air, and use of radon traps. 

Addition of the ingredients in the correct order is essential to avoid production problems. The normal order starts with the presence of around 30-50% of final product volume of process water to which preservatives other than sulphur dioxide are first added. This volume should be as large as possible to allow the addition of carbohydrates and fruit components, which follow in that order. At this point, the volume should be approaching 90% of final volume to allow the dilution of preservatives. Acidulant is then added, followed by colourings, flavourings and all other components. 

Salt formation is often used to enhance the solubility of insoluble compounds. The very low intrinsic solubilities of these insoluble compounds coupled with weak basicity or acidity may make the solubility determination of these salts veryLdiblt. For example, the water solubility of the phosphate salt of a very insoluble compound GW1818X was determined to be 6.8 mg/mL and the pH of the saturated solution was 5.0 (Tong and Whitesell, 1998). The solubility at this pH was shown to be limited by the solubility of the base and did not adequately represent the solubility of the salt. One way to avoid this problem is to determine solubility in a diluted acidic solution using the same acid that formed the salt with the base. The solubility can then be estimated by correcting for the common ion effect from the acid. Keep in mind that it is only from a solubility experiment at a pH less than p x that the solubility of the salt can be estimated. 

Selection of an appropriate internal standard can also assist in correcting for ion suppression issues caused by matrix components. However, if the ion suppression is too severe, then inevitably sensitivity will suffer. Ion suppression must be limited to a degree sufficient to avoid sensitivity problems. To reduce ion suppression, a sample cleanup method is necessary. Moreover, proper co-crystallization is directly related to sample composition and therefore, sample cleanup is necessary for successful MALDI ionization. 

Data Processing. Fraser (21) has shown that, with data measured in array form, each array member may be individually given Lorentz (velocity), polarization and absorption corrections. This avoids the problems incurred in the Photometric Peak Center method and Sum Intensity method in which the corrections are applied as if all intensity is recorded at the peak amplitude position. Fraser (22) has also shown that, by choosing data... 

Moreover, it has been remarked that it is necessary to use more than one adsorbate for a correct characterization of the narrow porosity. Thus, in the case of CMSs and other carbon materials (i.e., highly activated carbons) with narrow micropores, N2 at 77 K is not a suitable adsorbate due to diffusion problems. Other adsorptives and conditions, like C02 at 273 or 298 K, avoid such problems. From all of these, it can be concluded that for a suitable characterization of the porosity of carbon materials by physical adsorption, the use of more than one adsorbate and the application of several theories and methods to the adsorption-desorption isotherms are recommended. 

The practise of requesting the electronic version from the Contributor after the analytical data, on hard copy, had already been validated, continued till 2000. In order to avoid the problem of inconsistent data between electronic and hard copy version, the VG decided in 2000, that starting from January 1, 2001 onward the validation process of MS data would be based on the electronic version. Also from the same time, both the hard copy and the electronic version were to be submitted for evaluation at the same time. In case of inconsistency in the case of MS data, the electronic version of each spectrum would be considered correct and not the hard copy version. This new approach has been implemented successfully for the MS analytical technique. 

It may take a bit of practice to properly see the correct part of the meniscus line for accurate measurement. Fortunately, there are tricks and devices to facilitate the reading. For instance, if the graduation lines on the volumetric ware mostly encircle the tube, it is easy to line up your vision so that you can avoid parallax problems (see Fig. 2.16). 

Select standard size motor. A motor that is loaded to 85 percent by a 79.1-hp impeller will require a minimum size of (79.1 hp)/0.85 = 93.1 hp, which means a 100-hp (75-kW) motor. This motor and impeller assembly is correctly sized for conditions with the design gas flow. However, because of the gassed power factor, that is, P/P0 = 0.38, should the gas supply be lost for any reason, the impeller power would increase to 78/0.38 = 205 hp and seriously overload the motor. To avoid this problem, some method (typically electrical control) prevents motor operation without the gas supply. When the gas supply is off, the control either stops the agitator motor or, in the case of a two-speed motor, goes to a lower speed. 

---