what is the basis of baeyer's test for unsaturation?
912496
Actually, the Baeyer's reagent is alkaline KMNO4 . Firstly,\nreact the unsaturated hydrocarbon with alkaline KMnO4. Then, decolourization of KMNO4 occurs , this shows that the hydrocarbon is unsaturated. \n             This is given by alkenes and alkynes.\nTHe basis of this test is the strong oxidising action of KMNO4 in alkaline medium .
725588
1. concentration and pressure\n2. see sources
871305
2 unsaturations are implied by this formula; most likely a carbonyl and another double bond.\n\nTo find this, you take the # of carbons x 2, then add 2 more.  This gives you the # of hydrogens there would be on a saturated molecule.  In this case, 12.  Then 12-8 = 4 missing hydrogens.  2 hydrogens = 1 unsaturation; therefore, 4 divided by 2 = 2 unsaturations. \n\nOxygens are ignored in the calculations.
934133
Hydrolysis of an unsaturated fatty acid would cause saturation. Products would be saturated fatty acid and oxygen
93142
Why not try it?\nYou will have to come up with a way of using small amounts of each to keep it fair; perhaps a toy spoon from a doll's set.\nYou'll need to use the same amount of water for each test.\nAfter each addition, the solutions should be stirred by the same amount.
607818
http://www.webmd.com/hw/lab_tests/hw1768.asp
180379
Like the refractive index of urine (specific gravity) it depends on the concentration of the dissolved solutes. Other than using it as a baseline in the assays mentioned above, I can think of little purpose in performing it. It is non-specific, and even a reading in the 'normal' range would not preclude an electrolyte imbalance.
248494
Ekta, it should be McNemar not McNerman.\n\nIt is the chisquare test for matched pairs. In a normal chisquare test you do the sum of  [(observed - expected)^2]/ expected and calculate the degrees of freedom. But in a matched chisquare analysis, the concordant pairs, that is a and d give no information, but only the discordant pairs are useful to us.\nHence, we have,\nChi square = (c-b)^2 / (b+c).\nThere is a continuity correction but I will not go into it. The degrees of freedom will again be 1.\n\nI hope you got what u meant to ask. If not, u can just comment further in this question and I will answer it.
610466
Spectrophotometric methods, or those based on the absorption of light by an analytical species, are some of the simplest and most common methods used in quantitative analysis. The amount of light which is absorbed by the sample (A) is correlated with the concentration (c) of the analytical species present using Beer's Law (A = e bc; where e is the molar absorptivity for the analytical species and b is the pathlength of the sample cell). \n\nIn this experiment, the analytical species, iron, will be studied using a colorimetric method in which a reagent is added to transform iron into a highly absorbing complex. Iron is often found in nature in reasonably high concentrations and may enter the hydrosphere through the weathering of iron salts and minerals. Both iron (II) and iron (III) ions are commonly found dissolved in water either in a colloidal form or as inorganic or organic complexes. There are also multiple anthropogenic sources of iron in the environment such as canneries, tanneries, textile mills, and metal cleaning operations. \n\nA relatively simple but sensitive colorimetric procedure for the determination of iron involves first reducing all iron present in the sample to iron (II) ion using hydroxylamine hydrochloride and then complexing with 1,10-phenanthroline in a solution buffered at low pH:\n\nPart 1: Preparation of Iron Standard Solutions\n\nWeigh 351 mg of high quality ferrous ammonium sulfate hexahydrate (FeSO4(NH4)2SO4 Ÿ 6H2O) and quantitatively transfer to a 500 mL volumetric flask. Add 50 mL of distilled water followed by 1 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid. Dilute to the mark with distilled water and mix thoroughly. Using this solution, prepare five standard solutions of iron (II) ion (about 10 - 15 mL should be sufficient) ranging in concentration from 0.5 to 5 ppm.\n\nPart 2: Preparing a Beer's Law Plot\n\nTransfer a 5 mL aliquot of the lowest concentration iron standard solution (probably 0.5 ppm) to a 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask and test the pH with test paper. If the pH is greater than 4.5, add enough 0.2 M sulfuric acid to bring the pH to about 3.5, counting the number of drops that you have added. \n\nAgain, counting the drops that you add, add sodium citrate (259 g/L) buffer to bring the pH to about 4.5. Pipet 1 mL of 10% hydroxylamine hydrochloride and 3 mL of 0.3% 1,10-phenanthroline into the sample and mix the solution well. Allow about 5 min for development of color.\n\nUse the same number of drops of sulfuric acid and sodium citrate for your remaining standard solutions. For each solution, add 1 mL of 10% hydroxylamine hydrochloride and 3 mL of 0.3% 1,10 phenanthroline and mix the solutions well. Allow about 5 min for development of color for each solution.\n\nScan the absorbance of each of the solutions from 300 to 600 nm using the Shimadzu ultraviolet-visible spectrometer, noting the absorbance value of each solution at 510 nm. For each sample, use water as your reference blank.\n\nPart 3: Analysis of samples\n\nWater samples should be measured for each member of your group in addition to determining the iron concentration in an unknown water sample provided by the Instructor. Treat the samples in the same way as the standards: using a 5 mL sample, add sulfuric acid initially, if necessary, to adjust the pH, followed by citrate buffer, reducing agent (1 mL of 10% hydroxylamine hydrochloride), and the indicator (3 mL of 0.3% 1,10 phenanthroline). Mix the solutions well and allow about 5 minutes for development of the complex. \n\nScan the absorbance of each of your sample solutions from 300 to 600 nm using the Shimadzu ultraviolet-visible spectrometer, noting the absorbance value of each solution at 510 nm. Using your Beer's Law plots prepared in Part 2 and the measured absorbances of your samples, determine the iron concentrations in each of your water samples.
663593
A unified family of goodness-of-fit tests is introduced and studied.\nThe new family of test statistics Sn(s) includes both the supremum\nversion of the Anderson-Darling statistic and the test statistic of\nBerk and Jones (1979) as special cases. The new family is based on\nphi-divergences somewhat analogously to the phi-divergence tests for\nmultinomial families introduced by Cressie and Read (1984), and is\nindexed by a real parameter s ∈ R: s = 2 gives the Anderson - Darling\ntest statistic, s = 1 gives the Berk-Jones test statistic, s = 1/2 gives\na new (Hellinger - distance type) statistic, s = 0 corresponds to the\n“reversed Berk-Jones” statistic studied by Jager and Wellner (2004),\nand s = −1 gives a “studentized” (or empirically weighted) version\nof the Anderson - Darling statistic. We also introduce corresponding\nintegral versions of the new statistics.\nWe show that the asymptotic null distribution theory of Jaeschke\n(1979) and Eicker (1979) for the Anderson-Darling statistic, and of\nBerk and Jones (1979) and Wellner and Koltchinskii (2003) for the\nBerk-Jones statistic, applies to the whole family of statistics Sn(s)\nwith s ∈ [−1, 2]. We also provide new finite-sample approximations\nto the null distributions and show how the new approximations can\nbe used to obtain accurate computation of quantiles.\nOn the side of power behavior, we show that for 0 < s < 1 and\nfixed alternatives the test statistics always converge almost surely to\ntheir corresponding natural parameter. For 1 < s < ∞ we provide\nnecessary and sufficient conditions on the alternative d.f. F for convergence\nto the corresponding natural parameter to hold, and show\nthat the “Poisson boundary” phenomena noted by Berk and Jones\nfor their statistic continues to hold for s ≥ 1 and s < 0 by identifying\nthe Poisson boundary distributions explicitly. We also briefly discuss\nfurther large deviation results and connections between the work of\nBerk and Jones (1979) and Groeneboom and Shorack (1981).\nWe extend the results of Donoho and Jin (2004) by showing that\nall our new tests for s ∈ [−1, 2] have the same “optimal detection\nboundary” for normal shift mixture alternatives as Tukey’s “highercriticism”\nstatistic and the Berk-Jones statistic.
840473
Need more specifics as to your problem.\n\nHowever, I assume you are trying to do a quantitation on a UV or vis absorbing substance.\n\nMake up  a set of standards of known concentration of your analyte in the solvent you will be analyzing in.  Then do some scans over the whole wavelength range. \n\nUsually pick the wavelength at the top of the largest absorbance peak, unless that is a wavelength which will have interferences from other substances present.  If so, then pick a wavelength with good absorbance that is not subject to such interference.
734519
(1) Take a container and measure the length of the container. Let us say the length of the container is L. \n\n(2) Take a beam of light (preferably a monochromatic source like laser beam) and shine it through the empty container. \n\n(3) Measure the intensity of the light at the end where the beam has gone through the empty container. Let this be Io. \n\n(4) Now fill the container with the liquid whose molar extinction coefficient is unknown. Now measure the light intensity as the beam travels the length L of the container. The measured intensity is I.\n\n(5) Beer-Lamberts law is I=Io exp(-a L) where all the quantities have been experimentally determined except a which is the extinction coefficient. \nRearrange the above formula and we get, a=(-1/L)*log(I/Io) where log is to the base e.
75751
if there is no double bond between two carbon atoms then it is saturated
895703
Dear sophia,\ni hope this will be useful to u...\nthis link will give u the procedure in british columbia university\nhttp://supercritical.civil.ubc.ca/~blaval/Courses/CIVL545/CIVL545_3_WinklerMethod.pdf\n\nthe follwing link will give u the procedure and other links fro ur doubts??\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen\n\nhave i made u clear??
560605
With IR you can dilute your soln so you have a bit more of it and then stick it on a plate and check out the peaks. That can give you a good idea of what you have... or there is HNMR, and CNMR, but it really depends on how much you have of the substance. If you have a general idea of what it might be then check the PH and give it a good guess... or use an indicator that might form some kind of ppt. with the substance in the soln . I've found that a refractive index really isnt the way to go because it isnt as reliable as other tests. Gas chromotograpy and Thin layer chormotograpy both require a general idea of what you might be coming up with... GC can be sketchy and you dont want to loose any sample on a test that might not tell you much, same with TLC, you would haev to be careful with the slovent interaction with the "unknown" that you have.
886413
Use three test tubes, put equal amout of enzymes in all and put the substance they digest in both (equal amounts of course).\n\ntake a test tube(A) and put 2cm3 of Hydrochloric acid.\nTake test tube (B) and put 2cm3 of Pure water(pH7).\nTake test tube (C) and put 2cm3 of Sodium Hydroxide.\n\nshake them all a little just as you start the test.\n\nLeave them for half an hour at their optimum temperature and other factors.Make sure all factors among them are equal.\n\nAfter that, Test for the substance you put in (e.g test for starch using iodine if you put starch in).\n\nThe one with the most negative result is the optimum pH.
1015799
Use the second derivative test, not sure exactly what it is still but it should be easy to find on the internet.