Induction first limit

First, there is an inhibiting effect of the additive on the low pressure explosions, so that the second limit pressure is reduced and the first limit is raised on addition of the hydrocarbon [329—331]. Secondly, there may be an increase in the maximum rate (of decrease of pressure) in the slow reaction [330]. Thirdly, induced explosions may occur in some cases (not with methane) at pressures outside the + O2 explosion peninsula. In most cases such induced explosions appear as one sharp explosive reaction. However, they are sometimes characterized (e.g. with CaHg at 560 °C) by an induction period during which there is a rapid pressure increase, and this is followed immediately by a very rapid pressure decrease in the system. It is probable that all the induced explosions follow this two-stage pattern. This type of explosion does not occur in H2—Oj—CH4 mixtures because methane is not as reactive as propane in... 

Since the first report on the asymmetric photosensitization (7.7% ee) of the isomerization of tra s-1,2-diphenylcyclopropane by Hammond and Cole, attention has been focused on enantiodifferentiating photosensitized isomerization reactions. The observed asymmetric induction was limited, until Inoue et al. achieved remarkable enantiomeric excesses of up to 64% ee in the photoisomerization of Z-cyclooctene to the optically active -cyclooctene, sensitized by chiral benzenepolycarboxylates at -89°C. Valuable insights into the mechanism (e.g., the entropy influence) were gained from the temperature and pressure dependence of the observed enantioselectivities. ... 

The Production Department was not amused, because lower values had been expected. Quality Control was blamed for using an insensitive, unse-lective, and imprecise test, and thereby unnecessarily frightening top management. This outcome had been anticipated, and a better method, namely polarography, was already being set up. The same samples were run, this time in duplicate, with much the same results. A relative confidence interval of 25% was assumed. Because of increased specificity, there were now less doubts as to the amounts of this particular heavy metal that were actually present. To rule out artifacts, the four samples were sent to outside laboratories to do repeat tests with different methods X-ray fluorescence (XRFi °) and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICP). The confidence limits were determined to be 10% resp. 3%. Figure 4.23 summarizes the results. Because each method has its own specificity pattern, and is subject to intrinsic artifacts, a direct statistical comparison cannot be performed without first correcting the apparent concentrations in order to obtain presumably true... 

Tests were run with N80 steel in 15% and 28% HC1 at 25 C with and without octynol for periods extending up to 2 hours. Immediately after injection of octynol into the acid, two phenomena were observed. First, near the low-frequency limit of the tests, a prominent inductive loop (below the Z axis) appeared which then vanished within a few minutes. Secondly, fits of the data above 1 Hz to the Rfl+P/Rfc circuit, i.e. ignoring the inductive loop, gave rise to a higher CPE n-value, which then remained relatively constant for the duration of each experiment. This result is shown in Figure 5. 

The extension of inductively coupled plasma (ICP) atomic emission spectrometry to seawater analysis has been slow for two major reasons. The first is that the concentrations of almost all trace metals of interest are 1 xg/l or less, below detection limits attainable with conventional pneumatic nebulisation. The second is that the seawater matrix, with some 3.5% dissolved solids, is not compatible with most of the sample introduction systems used with ICP. Thus direct multielemental trace analysis of seawater by ICP-AES is impractical, at least with pneumatic nebulisation. In view of this, a number of alternative strategies can be considered ... 

Modified Buehler. Buehler (1964) developed the first test system to use an occlusive patch to maximize dermal exposure and to increase the test sensitivity (Buehler, 1964). Although, this assay is still insensitive for some xenobiotics that may not sufficiently traverse the epidermis, it is particularly useful for compounds that are either highly irritating by intradermal injection or cannot be dissolved or suspended in a form that is conducive to injection. Other advantages are that the test produces few false positives, rarely overpredicts the potency of sensitizers, and is less likely to produce limiting system toxicity or ulceration at the induction sites. Figure 15.4 shows the test design in its current (OECD) form. 

---