Analysis of triallate residues in cereals and soil by gas chromatography with ion-trap detection.
Triallate residues in barley seedlings and soil samples were determined by gas chromatography with ion-trap detection. Soil was extracted with methanol on a mechanical shaker, and plants were extracted with acetonitrile in a Sorvall homogenizer. After evaporation of the organic solvents, the residue was dissolved in hexane, and plants extracts were cleaned-up on an alumina column. Gas chromatographic analysis was carried out using a BP-1 fused-silica capillary column with helium as carrier gas. To quantitate residues the total-ion chromatogram was obtained and then the selected-ion monitoring chromatograms were displayed at m/z 86 for triallate and at m/z 154 for the internal standard, methyl-(4-amino-2-chloro)-benzoate. The average recovery through the method from barley and soil samples was always higher than 80%. The limit of detection in the selected-ion mode was 0.01 mg/kg. Barley and soil samples treated with triallate were also analysed. A good agreement was observed between results obtained by this method and by gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection.
DETERMINATION OF TRIALLATE RESIDUES IN ALFALFA AND COMPANION CROPS OF WHEAT AND BARLEY
Triallate residues were determined in forage samples of both alfalfa and companion crops of wheat and barley which had been treated with preplant incorporations of triallate and grown either under irrigation or dryland conditions. All the samples, collected at the earliest date that the crop would be cut for forage, contained less than 20 ppb triallate, the limit of detection of the analytical method.
Tethering the Administrative State: The Case Against Chevron Deference for FCC Jurisdictional Claims
Like many other agencies, the Federal Communications Commission has seen significant regulatory growth under President Obama. But unlike health care, financial reform, and other areas, this growth has come without statutory guidance from Congress. The FCC’s assertion of jurisdiction over broadband service is reminiscent of its earlier attempts to regulate cable and to deregulate telephone service, efforts that courts have viewed skeptically in the absence of specific statutory authorization. But this skepticism is in tension with Chevron, which grants agencies substantial deference to interpret ambiguities in the statutes that they administer. This article argues that Chevron deference should not extend to agency jurisdictional claims, such as the FCC’s claim to authority over broadband. For both constitutional and policy reasons, courts should distinguish between agency action that fills a gap in a statutory scheme and action that defines the outer boundary of that scheme. As the Commission’s net neutrality project winds its way through the judicial system, courts should not allow the agency to define the limits of its own authority, and should instead search closely for a grant of authority from Congress.