Reactions of mental chelates. I. The reactions of copper (II) chelates of some beta-diketones and their related compounds with glycine, diglycine and triglycine.
The reactions of copper(II) chelates of β-diketones such as acetylacetone, benzoylacetone, dibenzoylmethane and benzoylacetaldehyde and of chelates of their related compounds such as salicylaldehyde and 2-hydroxyacetophenone with glycine or glycylglycine were investigated. Only bis(salicylaldehydato)copper(II) and bis(benzoylacetaldehydato)copper(II) reacted with glycine to form the respective glycinato-Schiff base complexes, whereas the other chelates did not react with glycine under the same condition. On the other hand, all the chelates except bis(dibenzoylmethanato)copper(II) reacted with glycylglycine to form the respective glycylglycinato-Schiff base complexes. The reaction at pH 4.5 between bis(salicylaldehydato)copper(II) and triglycine resulted in the hydrolytic cleavage of peptide bond, producing the salicylideneglycylglycinatocuprate(II) and free glycine. As the results of this investigation, five new copper(II) chelates were synthesized and characterized.
The Stability of Fused Rings in Metal Chelates. IV. Preparation and Relative Stability of Copper(II) Complexes with Tetradentate Schiff Base Ligands
Relative stability of sixteen aldehyde- and the corresponding ketone-Schiff base chelates has been investigated in terms of their decomposing temperature and half-wave potential against the reduction of copper(II) at the dropping mercury electrode. The previous conclusion, established for copper(II) tridentate Schiff base complexes, that Schiff base chelates of aldehydes are generally less stable than those of corresponding ketones has been proved to be valid also for copper(II) tetradentate Schiff base complexes if there is no serious steric hindrance in the Schiff base ligand. As a result of this investigation, six new copper(II) chelates were synthesized and characterized.
To Devolve or Not To Devolve? Welfare Reform in the States
This article analyzes variation in the degree to which states have responded to the devolution of welfare at the federal level by devolving authority over welfare policy to local government. I find that to the extent that states have devolved authority to lower levels of government, they tend to be states that already had a high degree of involvement of local government in welfare provision. In states without this record of local government involvement, the devolution that has occurred has not generated greater involvement of local government, but rather responsibility has been devolved to regional entities with ties to workforce development and with a substantial degree of business involvement. As states gain increasing authority over a redistributive policy, they may begin to treat it as a subset of a larger developmental policy—workforce development.