Synthesis of meso-tetra-(2-chloro-4-sulfophenyl) prophyrin and spectrophotometric determination of trace amounts of cadmium
Synthesis of a new high sensitive water soluble chromogenic reagent meso-tetra-(2-chloro-4-sulfophenyl) prophyrin and the conditions for the reaction of this reagent with cadmium (I) were studied. The apparent molar absorption coefficient at 434 nm is 5.20×105 L·mol−1·cm−1. The method has been applied to the determination of 5.0×10−9 (content by weight) Cadmium (I) in honey.
SEPARATION OF CADMIUM FROM URANIUM, COBALT, NICKEL, MANGANESE, ZINC, COPPER, TITANIUM, AND OTHER ELEMENTS BY CATION EXCHANGE CHROMATOGRAPHY
A study of the distribution curves of cations with AG 5OW-X8 resin in hydrochloric acid showed that most cations are adsorbed strongly from 0.5 N hydrochloric acid, while cadmium is not. This fact was used to develop a cation exchange chromatographic procedure to separate cadmium from uranium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, zinc, copper, and titanium. Other cations that are completely separated include Mg/sup 2+/, Ca/sup 2+/, Sr/sup 2+/, Ba/sup 2+/, Fe/sup 2+/, Fe / sup 3+/, Al/sup 3+/ ZrO/sup 2+/, Th/sup 4+/, Y/sup 3+/, La/sup 3+/ and the rare earths, and Cs/sup + Stannic tin accompanies cadium quantitatively and can be separated from the cations named above by a similar procedure. (auth) The solids obtained by heating a mixture of UO/sub 2/, ZrO/sub 2/, and ThO/sub 2/ to 1400 deg C in a current of H/sub 2/ were studied. In the ZrO/sub 2/-poor region a cubic phase is formed in these conditions in which the ZrO/sub 2/ concentration goes gradually from a maximum of 17 mole% to less than 1 mole% with an increase in the amount of Th present. The ZrO/sub 2/ can dissolve about 8 mole% of UO/sub 2/. The solubility limit found for 1000 deg C practically coincidedmore » with that of the solids obtained at the slightly higher temperature. (tr-auth)« less
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194