Extraction spectrophotometric determination of maneb with 1-(2'-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol (PAN).
A rapid, sensitive, simple and selective spectrophotometric method has been developed for the determination of micro-quantities of maneb (manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) after extraction of the manganese-PAN complex in isobutyl methyl ketone (MIBK). The complex absorbs strongly at 550 nm. Beer's law is obeyed over the concentration range 0.37-3.75 microg/ml. The molar absorptivity was found to be 4.1 x 10(4) l. mole(-1) . cm(-1). The developed method has been applied to the determination of maneb in commercial formulations, synthetic mixtures, grain and in the presence of various other dithiocarbamates.
Spectrophotometric determination of maneb by ternary complex formation with PAR and CTAB.
A rapid, simple, direct, and sensitive method has been developed for the determination of maneb (manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) based on the formation of manganese-4-(2'-pyridylazo) resorcinol complex by a ligand displacement reaction, which is rendered water soluble by a cationic surfactant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) by the formation of an ion association complex. Beer's law is obeyed over the concentration range 0.08-2.4 mug/ml of the final solution at 500 nm in pH range 8-12. The molar absorptivity and Sandell's sensitivity are calculated to be 8.84 x 10(4) l.mol(-1).cm(-1) and 0.003 mug/cm(2), respectively. The developed method has been applied to the determination of maneb in commercial formulations, synthetic mixture, grain samples and vegetables.
ThAT is The qUesTion : CoMPAring The AdvAnTAges And disAdvAnTAges oF TesTiFying ACross siTUATions
Criminal defendants are under no obligation to testify on their own behalf and doing so can lead to deleterious outcomes. Specifically, if the defendant has a criminal record, the prosecution can introduce this into evidence in an effort to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Yet, failure to take the stand and proclaim one’s innocence arouses suspicion among jurors that may influence verdicts. In this study, we manipulated whether the defendant testified or not. In those instances where he did testify, we varied whether he had (1) no criminal record, (2) a criminal record for a similar offense, or (3) a criminal record for a dissimilar offense. Results indicated that mock jurors who adjudicated the defendant guilty were influenced by the defendant’s failure to take the stand. Furthermore, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when they perceived the defendant as less trustworthy, more aggressive, and less credible (as a witness). However, in no instance were these decisions and perceptions related to the manipulations. This suggests that mock jurors were suspicious of the defendant regardless of whether or not he testified, or whether he had a criminal record.