X-ray powder diffraction data, unit-cell parameters and space group for the β-form of pigment yellow 181, C25H21N7O5, are reported [a = 22.556(6) Å, b = 4.9684(9) Å, c = 21.318(6) Å, β = 109.492(4)°, unit-cell volume V = 2252,1 Å3, Z = 4, space group P21/c]. All measured lines were indexed and are consistent with the P21/c space group. No detectable impurities were observed.

Methods of chemical preparation and XRD data are reported for a new triphosphate CuNa3P3O10 and two cyclotriphosphates SrRbP3O9·3H2O and SrRbP3O9. SrRbP3O9·3H2O was prepared by the method of ion-exchange resin, while CuNa3P3O10 and SrRbP3O9 were obtained by total dehydration of CuNa3P3O10·12H2O and SrRbP3O9·3H2O, respectively. CuNa3P3O10 crystallizes in the hexagonal system, with space group P-31c, Z=2, and the following unit-cell dimensions: a=b=7.022(1) Å, c=9.217(1) Å, M(20)=81, F(20)=117(0.003 419, 50), and V=393.24(2) Å3. SrRbP3O9·3H2O is orthorhombic, with Z=4, space group Pnma, and the following unit-cell dimensions: a=9.120(1) Å, b=8.141(1) Å, c=15.234(1) Å, M(20)=5.1, F(20)=5.8(0.0173,199), and V=1131.1(3) Å3. SrRbP3O9 is monoclinic, with space group P21/m or P21, Z=4, and the following unit-cell dimensions: a=14.958(3) Å, b=8.503(2) Å, c=7.898(2) Å, β=122.19(2)°, M(20)=9.9, F(20)=16.5(0.0189, 64), and V=850.2(8) Å3.

To minimize waste, improve process safety, and reduce costs, modifications were implemented to a method for quantifying gallium in plutonium metal using wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence. These changes included reducing sample sizes, reducing ion exchange process volumes, using cheaper reagent grade acids, eliminating the use of HF acid, and using more robust containment films for sample analysis. Relative precision and accuracy achieved from analyzing multiple aliquots from a single parent sample were approximately 0.2 and 0.1%, respectively. The same precision was obtained from analyzing a total of four parent materials, and the average relative accuracy from all the samples was 0.4%, which is within programmatic uncertainty requirements.

The mixed ligand complexes of manganese(II), nickel(II), copper(II), zinc(II), and cadmium(II) involving aspartic acid and benzoic acid have been synthesized. The complexes were studied by various spectroscopic techniques such as infrared, electronic, X-ray diffraction, and magnetic measurements. The complexes were found to have octahedral geometry. The X-ray powder diffraction results show that the crystal systems of Mn(II)-Asp-Ben complex are hexagonal, and Ni(II)-Asp-Ben, Cu(II)-Asp-Ben, Zn(II)-Asp-Ben, and Cd(II)-Asp-Ben complexes are found to be triclinic. The value of unit-cell parameters and XRD data for the five mixed ligand complexes are reported.

The structures of anhydrous nickel, niobium, and tantalum chlorides have been investigated in situ in acidic and basic ionic liquids (ILs) of 1-methyl-3-ethylimidazolium chloride (EMIC)/AlCl3 with X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS). The coordination of NiCl2 changes from tetrahedral in basic solution to octahedral in acidic solution. The NiCl2 is a strong Lewis acid in that it can induce the AlCl3 to share its chlorides in the highly acidic IL, forming a structure with six near Cl− ions and eight further distant Al ions which share the chloride ions surrounding the Ni2+. When Nb2Cl10, a dimer, is added to the acidic or basic solution, the dimer breaks apart and forms two species. In the acid solution, two trigonal bipyramids are formed with five equal chloride distances, while in the basic solution, a square pyramid with four chlorides forming a square base and one shorter axial chloride bond. Ta2Cl10 is also a dimer and divides into half in the acidic solution and forms two trigonal bipyramids. In the basic solution, the dimer breaks apart but the species formed is sufficiently acidic that it attracts two additional chloride ions and forms a seven coordinated tantalum species.

A previous paper portrayed sample preparation by fusion methodology and the XRF analysis conditions for the calibration of cement materials [Bouchard et al., 2009. “Global cement and raw materials fusion/XRF analytical solution,” Adv. X-Ray Anal. 53, 263–279]. The results of two well known cement chemical analysis Standard Methods were also presented. These results proved that this robust analytical method is able to qualify by the ASTM C114 [ASTM C114-08 (2008). “Standard test methods for chemical analysis of hydraulic cement,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards Vol. 04.01 (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA), pp. 150–157)] and ISO/DIS 29581-2 [Draft Standard, 2007-07 (2007). “Methods of testing cement—Chemical analysis of cement—Part 2: Analysis by X-ray fluorescence” ISO/DIS 29581-2, 2007, pp. 1–30]. This robust analytical method was developed using an automated fusion instrument for the sample preparation and a WDXRF spectrometer for the determination of all elements of interest relating to the cement industry. This method was used to prepare finished products, process materials, as well as a very large range of raw materials. The first part of this second paper examines all the XRF analysis conditions for the calibration of the raw materials using the robust fusion sample preparation methodology as well as the numerous reference materials (RMs) used for this analytical application. All interesting results will be presented. The second part of this paper reveals the rapid analytical method results using sample preparation by fusion on nonignited samples. It will also be proven that this faster method, combined with the WDXRF spectrometer, complies with both cement analysis Standard Methods: ASTM C114 and ISO/DIS 29581-2.

GSAS instrument parameters are tabulated for a variety of laboratory and synchrotron diffractometers to give users an idea of the typical ranges of profile parameters when they generate their own instrument parameter files. For modern high-resolution laboratory diffractometers, the parameters fall in the ranges 0<U<3, V=0, 0<W<4, 1<X<3, 0<Y<3, 1<asym<3, and 0<S/L<0.03. For synchrotron diffractometers, the parameters fall in the ranges 0<U<1.2, −1<V<0, 0<W<1, 0<X<1, 0<Y<1, 0<asym<0.5, 0<S/L<0.001, and 0<H/L<0.007. FULLPROF equivalents are also reported. The factors which are convoluted together to generate the instrument profile are described.