MODEL Generic-Variable

The modeling hierarchies of constraint and generic-variable (see Section IV.C) have been expanded to a series of subclasses, which... 

Class variable is a subclass of the basic class generic-variable. From the class variable emanates the tree of subclasses, a partial view of which is shown in Fig. 19. Unlike other modeling approaches, MODEL.LA. does not represent variables through their values alone, but it provides an extensive structure that includes many additional attributes in the description of a variable. The additional attributes allow MODEL. LA. to reason about these variables and not just acquire their values. Thus, a set of methods in the class variable allow any of the subclasses to monitor their values, react with predefined procedures when the value of the variable changes, invoke values from external databases, and so on. 

The class term is a subclass of the generic-variable, and one of the most important modeling elements in MODEL.LA. It is used to represent a very broad spectrum of compound physical quantities, which appear in modeling relationships. Figure 20 shows a partial view of that... 

Saito with a fine wire thermocouple embedded at the surface [3]. The scatter in the results are most likely due to the decomposition variables and the accuracy of this difficult measurement. (Note that the surface temperature here is being measured with a thermocouple bead of finite size and having properties dissimilar to wood.) Likewise the properties k. p and c cannot be expected to be equal to values found in the literature for generic common materials since temperature variations in the least will make them change. We expect k and c to increase with temperature, and c to effectively increase due to decomposition, phase change and the evaporation of absorbed water. While we are not modeling all of these effects, we can still use the effective properties of Tig, k, p and c to explain the ignition behavior. For example,... 

A classical Hansch approach and an artificial neural networks approach were applied to a training set of 32 substituted phenylpiperazines characterized by their affinity for the 5-HTiA-R and the generic arAR [91]. The study was aimed at evaluating the structural requirements for the 5-HTiA/ai selectivity. Each chemical structure was described by six physicochemical parameters and three indicator variables. As electronic descriptors, the field and resonance constants of Swain and Lupton were used. Furthermore, the vdW volumes were employed as steric parameters. The hydrophobic effects exerted by the ortho- and meta-substituents were measured by using the Hansch 7t-ortho and n-meta constants [91]. The resulting models provided a significant correlation of electronic, steric and hydro-phobic parameters with the biological affinities. Moreover, it was inferred that the... 

In surface-complexation models, the relationship between the proton and metal/surface-site complexes is explicitly defined in the formulation of the proposed (but hypothetical) microscopic subreactions. In contrast, in macroscopic models, the relationship between solute adsorption and the overall proton activity is chemically less direct there is no information given about the source of the proton other than a generic relationship between adsorption and changes in proton activity. The macroscopic solute adsorption/pH relationships correspond to the net proton release or consumption from all chemical interactions involved in proton tranfer. Since it is not possible to account for all of these contributions directly for many heterogeneous systems of interest, the objective of the macroscopic models is to establish and calibrate overall partitioning coefficients with respect to observed system variables. 

Finally, the MOS should also take into account the uncertainties in the estimated exposure. For predicted exposure estimates, this requires an uncertainty analysis (Section 8.2.3) involving the determination of the uncertainty in the model output value, based on the collective uncertainty of the model input parameters. General sources of variability and uncertainty in exposure assessments are measurement errors, sampling errors, variability in natural systems and human behavior, limitations in model description, limitations in generic or indirect data, and professional judgment. 

We denote by 07 = Hi/HijS the dimensionless variables corresponding to the energy flow rates Hiy i = 1,..., N (the subscript s denotes steady-state values). Appending a generic representation of the overall and component material-balance equations, with xtfc IRm being the material-balance variables, the overall mathematical model of the process in Figure 6.1 becomes... 

Limited comparisons of exposure outputs from both the PHED and EUROPOEM models indicate some similarity (Lunchick et al 1994). There is a more detailed discussion of these models and a newer generic database under development in North America in Chapter 5 of this text. It is generally considered that disparate results may reflect differences in European and North American agricultural practices, plus inherent variability in exposure potential, as well as other variables. For harmonized exposure assessments between North America and Europe, it is important to fully scope out the compatibility of these two databases. A combined database would facilitate harmonization and has been proposed. Region-specific considerations could be accommodated by additional subsetting options. 

Therefore it would be much desired to derive the concentrations and acidity constants of particular types of surface sites from some first principles, rather than to fit them as adjustable parameters. This would produce generic charging curves for certain material (rather than for specific sample). Unfortunately verification of such a model is rather difficult in view of contradictory surface charging curves reported in the literature for different samples of the same material (cf Figs. 3,43-3.73). The surface charging depends on many variables, e.g, the PZC is temperature dependent, and the absolute value of ag depends on the nature of the counterions (K versus Na, etc.). Consideration of all these variables would be very tedious, and such effects are mostly ignored in the attempts to predict the surface charging behavior of materials. 

---