I 206
T H E JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
UNIT WEIGHTS FOR THE PURCHASE O F REAGENTS
By W. D. Collins CHAIRMAN, COMXITTEE O N GUARANTEED REAGENTS A N D STANDARD *APPARATUS, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Received October 28, 1920
A t the meeting of the Industrial Division of the SOCIETY at Chicago, the chairman of the Committee on Guaranteed Reagents and Standard Apparatus presented a brief paper on the subject of uniform unit sizes for the purchase of reagents. A conference with representatives of manufacturers was held in New York a t the time of the Chemical Exposition, and the question has since been discussed by correspondence and personally with a number of dealers and large purchasers. As the outcome of these discussions this note has been prepared. Manufacturers, without exception, have expressed their willingness t o furnish reagents in packages of any unit quantity desired by the buyer. The committee feels that if purchasers took full advantage of this policy there would be some increase in cost and in delay in filling orders, as compared with the situation where the number of unit sizes is limited for each reagent. Use of metric units in chemical laboratory work is almost universal, and certain supplies have long been purchased in metric units. Regular inorganic reagents are a t present largely bought by the pound, although the manufacturers are perfectly willing to sell in grams. They list their prices, however, by the pound because nearly all of their orders are in this unit. If members of the SOCIETY order reagents by the pound because they are so given in price lists, and manufacturers continue to list the units ordered most, there may be a long period during which the number of orders in metric units is very gradually growing a t the expense of the number in pounds. In order to make this transition period as brief as possible, the unit weights given below are suggested as desirable for the
Vol.
12,
No.
IZ
purchase of the reagents named. The regular unit for the greater number of reagents has been the pound. The metric equivalent would naturally be joo g. Although the saving in expenditure may not be great, there is a certain demand for a smaller unit in laboratories where a few grams of a reagent may To provide for such needs a be all that is needed in a year. package of 100g. is suggested. Appropriate units for reagents not given in the list can be selected easily from consideration of cost, extent of use, and keeping qualities. SUGGESTED UNIT WEIGHTS FOR REAGENTS (II Acetic Anhydride, ....................... 200 Acid: Acetic, Glacial.. ...................... 500 500 Citric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Hydriodic (1.70). ..................... Hydrobromic (1.38). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Hvdrochloric (1.19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25001 25 Iddic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Molybdic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nitric (1.40-1.42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3000’ 500 Nitric, Fuming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Perchloric (1.12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Sulfanilic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40001 Sulfuric (1.84). . . . . . . . 500 Sulfuric, Fuming. . . . . . 20001 Ammonium Hvdroxide. .. 500 Ammonium Chloride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ammonium Oxalate.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 Ammonium Thiocyanate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 500 Barium Chloride.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benzidine.. . . . . . . . . . . 25 ... 500 Bromine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Dimethylglyoxime. ..... ... 25 Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride. . . . . . . . . . . . 500 Iodine ....................... 25 Metap amine Hydrochloride, . . . . 25 Methyl Orange.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Methyl R e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Methylene Blue.. . . .............. Phenolphthalein. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 25 Phenylhydrazine. . . . . . . . .
..
Platinum Chloride. Potassium Iodate..
......................
.
Sodium Nitroferricy Sodium Peroxide. Uranium Acetate. 1 The usual 5-pint bottle
.. ..
...............
GRAMS)
25 100 100
5 25 500 5 25 500
... ... ... ...
... , . .
, . . , . .
...
500
...
...
, . .
500 100 100
25
100 5 200 5 5 100 5 5 1
5
25 5
10
1 1 10
5 100 200 100
25 100 100
... ... ...
25 25 5
...
25
... ... ... ...
... .
.
I
...
.‘56 .. ‘25
... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...
... .
.
I
A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF CHEMISTS IN THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE, TEN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND THIRTY-SEVEN FIRMS By Lyman F. Kebler1,2 Received October 23, 1920
An Act creating a Commission on Reclassification of Salaries, consisting of three Senators and three Representatives, became effective March I, 1919. The law directs the Commission to investigate the rate of compensation paid civilian government employees in the District of Columbia, except the navy yard and the postal service, and t o report what reclassification and readjustment of compensation should be made so as to provide uniform and equitable pay for the same class and character of work. The commission consisted of: SENATORS: A. A. Jones, Chairman, New Mexico; Chas. H. Henderson, Vice Chairman, Nevada; S. P. Spencer, Missouri. REPRESENTATIVES: Edward Resting, Secretavy, Colorado; C. W. Hamlin, Missouri: H. A. Cooper, Wisconsin.
The report was submitted March IZ, 1920, and printed as House of Representatives Document 686; 66th Congress, 2nd Session. The purpose of the investigation was clear. The Commission, as well as Congress, was familiar with the perplexities constantly arising in making appropriations for salaries, and understood in a measure the difficulties confronting the administration 1 Member of the Research Staff of the Federal ReclassiEcation Commission. 2 Data used by permission of the Reclassification Commission.
heads. I t was realized that chaotic conditions existed in the Federal service through lack of any consistent policy for fixing and controlling salaries. It was only after some months of study, however, that the Commission1 “came to appreciate how seriously the morale of the service had been impaired by the prevalence of unfairness and inconsistency in the compensation of employees.” SECURING DATA REGARDING POSITIONS
In order to secure a complete list and full data regarding positions in the “Washington Service,” every person, on April 30, 1919,was required to fill out a detailed questionnaire card which required the approval and signature of the immediate superior and the chief of the bureau or office where the worker was employed. After attaching appropriate class titles to these cards, an almost endless number of valuable tables of facts could be compiled about the positions. One of the chief objects was a classification based on duties and responsibilities. A study of the information collected from various sources showed, among other things, that there was an unduly large number of titles for positions calling for the same or similar qualifications; that a considerable disparity of compensation for the same or similar work often existed; that older, more able and experienced, 1
Commission Report, p. 28.
