Small method

In this technique, a sample is extracted from the sedimenting suspension at appropriate intervals by means of a pipette. These methods are incremental, and the sample is taken in one of two ways (a) at a fixed position in the app, or (b) at a fixed depth below the surface of the suspension. It is assumed in both instances that no disturbance of the suspension takes place by eddies, etc., while the sample is being taken, that the sample is representative of the suspension at the extraction point, and that the sample taken is small. Method (a) must take into account any lowering of the level of the top surface of the suspension... 

Peroxide Determinations. Bawn and Williamson report two iodometric procedures for determining peracetic acid (Methods I and III below) and one method for determining total peroxide (4) (Method II). Bawn and Jolly report another method for total peroxide (5) (Method IV below). The difference between total peroxide and peracetic acid is assumed to be acetaldehyde monoperacetate (AMP). Each method was tested in our preliminary studies. Method III is preferred for peracetic acid because the results are more reproducible. In Method I a large blank titration was always observed, while in Method III the blank titration was very small. Method IV is preferred for total peroxide because it seems to be more sensitive to total peroxide and less sensitive to water content of the acetic acid solvent. 

The modified Palen-Small method can be employed for reboiler design using finned tubes, but the maximum flux is calculated from A , the total outside heat-transfer area including fins. The resulting value of refers to A . 

The Small method Small proposed an additive method for the so-called molar attraction constant F ... 

Smalls Method. This method (8) is based on the assumption that the contributions of the individual atoms or groups to the overall value of the solubility parameter of the molecule are additive ... 

Smalls method (9) which was used to determine the parameters of some of the high polymers in Table II relies on the structure of the polymer and affords an estimate although its probably no better than using the parameter of the monomer. 

The Small method accurately predicts a solvent with mid-range polarity and a hydrogen bond character that agrees fairly well with the literature values for diacetone alcohol. 

The Small method predicts solvent values in the mid-range of polarity and hydrogen bond character which agree fairly well with the literature values for diacetone alcohol. If one uses this method to estimate the parameters of a solvent not listed in the literature then any other solvent used in a comparative study should also be estimated using the Small group contribution theory. While the literature recorded solubility parameters for a solvent are the preferred values to use in calculations, the Small method of estimating the values can be helpful. 

Independently of the approach used to get a constitutive law, parameters of the latter must be identified in laboratory. To simphfy the identification process, creep tests are preferred (Fafard et al., 2001 Picard et al., 2008) over any other tests to identify the constitutive laws parameters discussed in this work. In such case where the number of parameters to identify is small, methods such as Newton-Raphson algorithm could be used to minimize the error of an objective function through use of the least squares method. If the number of parameters is large, an alternative method like genetic algorithm may be more suitable. 

The majority of the studies that have determined the extent to which BP and its metabohtes are detected in human urine have been small method development studies. In one study that analyzed urine samples obtained from 14 human volunteers (urine collection methods not specified), BP, 2-hydroxybenzophenone, and 3-hydroxybenzophenone, were not detected in any of the urine samples, while the BP metabohte benzhydrol was detected in all urine samples in the range of 0.27-5.16 nanograms per ml (ng/ml), and 4-OH BP was detected in only one urine sample at 0.15 ng/ml (Ito et al. 2009). Levels of urinary benzhydrol have been reported in similar ranges in other smdies, including a study that included six human urine samples (0.4—3.7 ng/ml) (Kawaguchi et al. 2008), and a study that included an analysis of ten human urine samples (0.63—5.91 ng/ml) (Kawaguchi et al. 2009). 

---