Propositions

We proceed, next, to discuss these four Propositions. 

Consider two reversible heat engines A and B operating between the same two baths with temperatures ty and t2 (ty Cycle A absorbs an amount of heat qy at ty and rejects an amount of heat Q2 at t2. Cycle B operates in the opposite direction it absorbs an amount of heat Q2 at t2 and rejects an amount of heat Qy at ty. 

We operate engine A n times and engine B N times so that n q2 = 1G21 i- - amount of heat rejected to the cold bath by engine 

A equals the amount of heat absorbed from the same bath by engine B. We will demonstrate next that, since engines A and B have returned to their initial states ( and Nare integers), then n qy = iV )2i.  

Assume first that n qy Gi I The net result of the operation of the two cycles will be that an amount of heat equal to (n, - iV gj ) is absorbed from the bath at ty. Now, according to the first law applied to the whole process, this heat has been converted completely into work, which is impossible according to statement A of the second law. 

---

Propofol Propofol [2078-54-8] Proportional counters Proposition 65 Propoxides Propoxur [114-26-1]... 

Solveat users and formulators may choose to avoid notification requirements for their workplaces and products by selecting solvents that do not contain Proposition 65 substances. As a result. Proposition 65 considerations can also influence the composition of solvents used ia iadustrial processes and solvent-containing products. 

Proposition 65) while others are based on research and reports performed and/or assessed by the authoritative body (e.g., National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health). Examples of carcinogenicity source hsts (with a US focus) are ... 

For some time now plasticisers, especially phthalates, have been under pressure from environmentalists and regulatory bodies. In the regulatory arena there is the RCRAand CERCL A requirements of the EPA, Proposition 65 in California and the EU labelling requirements of chemicals. Taking this into account, as well as customer demand for alternative plasticisers, BASF has undertaken a project to develop a plasticiser suitable in a wide range of applications and which would meet the following... 

California - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - Proposition 65. Online. Available HTTP (accessed 10 April 2003). 

Passed in 1986 by the voters of California, Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity . 

Proposition 65 requires private employers to post warnings for persons handling carcinogenic compounds, and restricts all discharges of carcinogenic compounds. This is a new law that at present does not affect public institutions. However, state legislation is pending that will require public institutions to comply. 

Another global trend in this general direction is the drive toward PVC wire and cable reformulation to remove lead stabilizers. Among the replacements are stabilizers based on zinc or calcium.161 In addition to lead, concern about certain phthalate plasticizers is increasingly being encountered, such as California s proposition 65, which may continue the pressure on certain PVC-based materials. 

California s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) restricts the use and disposal of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and nickel compounds, without specifying limits. 

California Proposition 65 is the State s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The purpose of the regulation is to prevent contamination of drinking water and to advise the public of any chemicals in products that are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.The governor of California is required to revise and republish the list of chemicals at least once a year. A Scientific Advisory Panel recommends additions to the list periodically. These additions are reviewed at a public hearing, may be incorporated in the official list, and go into... 

Note that Proposition 65 is a labeling law. There is no prohibition on the use of these materials there is only the requirement that their presence must be noted on a warning sign and/or label. Which is why when you go into an establishment in California that serves adult beverages there are signs posted to warn you that alcohol is a known reproductive toxin. The only colorants affected by this law are the lead- and cadmium-containing pigments. 

The list of chemicals is updated at least annually, effective October 1. You should compare your materials with those on the list to determine whether your product will require Proposition 65 labeling. To receive the updated list, write to the State of California in care of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health Hazard Assessment, 301 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814 call to order the list at (916) 455-6900 or access it via the Internet at http //www.calepa.cahwnet.gov/oehha. 

Proposition 65. The formal designation of Proposition 65 is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. This act was passed overwhelmingly by California s voters on November 4, 1986. As of this writing (1996), California is the only state that has adopted this type of regulation. The principal objectives of Proposition 65 are to protect the State s drinking water sources from toxic contamination and to warn the public of possible carcinogenic and reproductive hazards associated with certain identified chemicals. 

Some industrial solvents are found on the Proposition 65 Hst. As of January 1, 1993 (2), benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methjlene chloride, 1,4-dioxane, 2-nitropropane, and perchloroethylene have been Hsted as substances known to the state of California to cause cancer. Ethji alcohol in alcohoHc beverages, ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, ethjiene glycol monoethyl ether acetate, and toluene are Hsted as substances known to the state of California to cause reproductive toxicity. Because the Hst is being expanded periodically, it is necessary for a user of industrial solvents to maintain awareness of the Proposition 65 Hst. 

Heavy metal contamination of excipients is a concern, especially for sugars, phosphate, and citrate. Several rules have been proposed or established. For example, the EP sets a limit of nmt 1 ppm of nickel in polyols. California Proposition 65 specifies a limif of nmt 0.5 pg of lead per day per product. Similarly, the FDA has proposed a guideline that would limit the aluminum content for all EVPs used in TPN therapy to 25 pg/L. Furthermore, it requires that the maximum level of aluminum in SVPs intended to be added to EVPs and pharmacy bulk packages, at expiration date, be stated on the immediate container label. 

---