Volatile organic compounds are organic chemicals that have a high vapor pressure at ordinary room temperature. Their high vapor pressure results from a low boiling point, which causes large numbers of molecules to evaporate or sublimate from the liquid or solid form of the compound and enter the surrounding air, a trait known as volatility. For example, which evaporates from paint and releases from materials like resin, has a boiling point of only –19 °C. VOCs are numerous and ubiquitous, they include both human-made and occurring chemical compounds. Most scents or odors are of VOCs. VOCs play an important role in communication between plants, messages from plants to animals; some VOCs are dangerous to human cause harm to the environment. Anthropogenic VOCs are regulated by law indoors, where concentrations are the highest. Harmful VOCs are not acutely toxic, but have compounding long-term health effects; because the concentrations are low and the symptoms slow to develop, research into VOCs and their effects is difficult.
Diverse definitions of the term VOC are in use. The definitions of VOCs used for control of precursors of photochemical smog used by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies in the US with independent outdoor air pollution regulations include exemptions for VOCs that are determined to be non-reactive, or of low-reactivity in the smog formation process. In the US, regulatory requirements for VOCs vary among the states. Most prominent is the VOC regulation issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in California and by the California Air Resources Board. However, this specific use of the term VOCs can be misleading when applied to indoor air quality because many chemicals that are not regulated as outdoor air pollution can still be important for indoor air pollution. California's ARB uses the term "reactive organic gases" to measure organic gases after public hearing in September 1995; the ARB revised the definition of "Volatile Organic Compounds" used in the consumer products regulations, based on their committee's findings.
Health Canada classifies VOCs as organic compounds that have boiling points in the range of 50 to 250 °C. The emphasis is placed on encountered VOCs that would have an effect on air quality; the European Union defines a VOC as "any organic compound having an initial boiling point less than or equal to 250 °C measured at a standard atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa." The VOC Solvents Emissions Directive is the main policy instrument for the reduction of industrial emissions of volatile organic compounds in the European Union. It covers a wide range of solvent using activities, e.g. printing, surface cleaning, vehicle coating, dry cleaning and manufacture of footwear and pharmaceutical products. The VOC Solvents Emissions Directive requires installations in which such activities are applied to comply either with the emission limit values set out in the Directive or with the requirements of the so-called reduction scheme. Article 13 of The Paints Directive, approved in 2004, amended the original VOC Solvents Emissions Directive and limits the use of organic solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and in vehicle finishing products.
The Paints Directive sets out maximum VOC content limit values for paints and varnishes in certain applications. The People's Republic of China defines a VOC as those compounds that have "originated from automobiles, industrial production and civilian use, burning of all types of fuels and transportation of oils, fitment finish, coating for furniture and machines, cooking oil fume and fine particles," and similar sources; the Three-Year Action Plan for Winning the Blue Sky Defence War released by the State Council in July 2018 creates an action plan to reduce 2015 VOC emissions 10% by 2020. The Central Pollution Control Board of India released the Air Act in 1981, amended in 1987, to address concerns about air pollution in India. While the document does not differentiate between VOCs and other air pollutants, the CPCB monitors "oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, fine particulate matter and suspended particulate matter." VOCs are defined in the various laws and codes under which they are regulated.
Other definitions may be found from government agencies advising about VOCs. EPA regulates VOCs in the air and land; the federal regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act set maximum contaminant level standards for several organic compounds in public water systems. EPA publishes wastewater testing methods for chemical compounds, including a range of VOCs, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In addition to drinking water, VOCs are regulated in pollutant discharges to surface waters, as hazardous waste, but not in non-industrial indoor air; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates VOC exposure in the workplace. Volatile organic compounds that are classified as hazardous materials are regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration while being transported. Not counting methane, biological sources emit an estimated 1150 teragrams of carbon per year in the form of VOCs; the majority of VOCs are produced by the main compound being isoprene. The remainder are produced by microbes.
Microbial volatile organic compounds can be beneficial, when used to control plant pathogens, for instance. The strong odor emitted by many plants consists of a subset of VOCs. Emissions are affected by a variety of factors, such as temperature, whic
The Zoghby Initiative was an ecumenical endeavour launched by Greek-Melkite bishop Elias Zoghby whose goal was to allow inter-communion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church after a short period of dialogue. Zoghby's ecumenical initiatives gained visibility in May 1974 with the exchange of visits between the Melkite Catholic and the Antiochian Orthodox synods, which met in Lebanon. During the visit of the Melkite Catholic delegation to the Orthodox synod Zoghby drew attention to the fact that the original causes of separation between the groups had ceased to exist and the way was open for the "creation by stages of a real union between the two Churches, without waiting for the union of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches." Afterwards the churches agreed to form separate commissions for dialogue. In 1975, Zoghby first suggested that the Melkite Catholic Church might enter communion with the Orthodox churches without ceasing to be in communion with Rome.
After consideration, the Melkite Synod shelved the proposal. The proposition, while admired, was considered too radical by the Melkite Catholic synod, whose members wished to proceed by more cautious dialogue, coupled with practical collaboration in community activities and pastoral work, prior to formal reunification; the idea remained stalled during the chaos of the Lebanese Civil War, not to re-emerge among the Melkite Synod for another 20 years. In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith: I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. At the July 1995 meeting of the Melkite Synod, twenty-four of the twenty-six attending bishops present subscribed to the so-called "Zoghby Initiative"; the document was presented to the Melkite Patriarch, Maximos V, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV.
The profession was accompanied by an endorsement by the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Biblos and Batroun, George Khodr, stating "I consider this profession by Kyr Elias Zoghby to fulfill the necessary and sufficient conditions to re-establish the unity of the Orthodox Churches with Rome." The proposal received much press, both negative. Numerous ecumenists lauded the initiative, while some canonists were critical. Despite the mixed reception, the initiative helped create a new climate of dialogue on East–West reunification and communion; the proposal itself, was rejected outright by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch at a special Synod convened to denounce the initiative. Zoghby asserted in his 1996 book Tous Schismatiques? that the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church share the same faith. He declared that the Councils held by the West alone cannot be considered "ecumenical", criticized the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Church, said that the union which took place between some Eastern Churches and Rome was a mistake.
Zoghby asserted that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is one of honor and charity only. He said that papal "infallibility depends on ecumenicity." Decrying the fissure between East and West, he said that "to prolong the schism is to remain in sin." Zoghby called for the Melkite Catholic Church to adopt "double communion" with both Rome and the Orthodox. Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros, who succeeded Zoghby as eparch of Baalbek, said that while issues exist between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Holy See, that "we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome."Zoghby called Tous Schismatiques? A "livre-choc", designed to stimulate discussion of the issue of his proposed communion; the book was dismissed by some in the Catholic Church as a personal position with little merit. So far, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has accepted the Zoghby initiative. Speaking for the Catholic Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger commented that "premature, unilateral initiatives are to be avoided, where the eventual results may not have been sufficiently considered."
The Antiochian Orthodox Church was circumspect toward his initiative, declaring in October 1996 that "our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."However, certain Orthodox leaders praised Zoghby's candor and goals. Although Zoghby's proposal of double communion has not been accepted by Rome or the Orthodox Church, the initiative focused greater attention on ecumenical discussions and renewed efforts for East–West unity
Raymund or Raimund Fugger was a German businessman, Imperial Count and art collector of the'of the Lily' branch of the Fugger family. He was the second son of Georg Fugger. After his father's death in 1506 his education was overseen by Georg's brother Jakob. From autumn 1509 to 1510 Raymund took care of his uncle's financial affairs at the court of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. Between February and May 1511 Raymund acted as a representative at the congress of ambassadors in Mantua before staying with pope Julius II. Jakob wrote a will on 30 December 1512, making his other nephew Ulrich Fugger the Younger head of the business, to be followed by Raymond. At the same time he wrote a special contract giving Ulrich and Raymund a privileged position regarding his copper mines in Hungary and his real estate - it gave Raymund and his brother Anton a one-third share each in that real estate. Raymund next moved to Krakow, a major trading centre for his own family and for the mine-owners the Thurzos.
On 16 January 1513 he married Katherina, daughter of the mining engineer and businessman János Thurzó. Raymund was Jakob's first choice as head of the joint Fugger-Thurzo mining company in Krakow and he agreed, before buying the lordship of Biberach jointly with Ulrich the Younger and settling in Augsburg by 1515 at the latest, as is clear from the tax records, his wife remained in Krakow, where their second son was born and died, both in 1516. Their children included Ulrich Fugger III, a papal chamberlain, Johann Jakob, art collector and businessman. Raymund built up a major estate in Augsburg which the humanist Beatus Rhenanus regarded as equal to the gardens of Francis I of France, he befriended the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Protestant reformer Philipp Melanchthon as well as gathering a large library. His main interests were his own family history as well as science and classical antiquity, his collection of artworks and antiquities is now scattered, but was described by Rhenanus when he was allowed to visit Raymund's house and gardens on the Kleesattlergasse in 1530.
It included Italian and Venetian paintings, although only one can be traced back to Fugger's collection, namely Vincenzo Catena of Raymund. Raymund patronised Lucas Cranach, who he may have met in Krakow, his books included an illuminated layman's prayer-book. He acquired his ancient coins and sculptures from Greece, southern Italy and Sicily through Venice via the family's trading networks - among other things Rhenanus described "a clothed, prancing figure, holding in its raised right hand a vessel in animal form, in its left a small bowl with a lion's head" and "a naked warrior with helmet, holding in his hands two snakes", he commissioned medals himself. Raymund made several trade trips in the following years. In 1522-1523 he was unable to maintain the Fuggers' monopoly on trade in Nuremberg, but was able to prevent the company going into liquidation. Jakob changed his will on 22 December 1525 - since Ulrich the Younger had died and Jakob's other nephew Hieronymus Fugger had withdrawn from the company and Anton were to head the business after Jakob's death, which occurred on 30 December the same year.
Due to the Fuggers' financial links with the House of Habsburg, Charles V appointed Raymond to the Imperial Diet and granted him exemption from the jurisdiction of the Rottweil and Westphalian courts, among others. On 30 June Charles V confirmed Raymond and his heirs as owners of Kirchberg, Weißenhorn and Biberbach. Raymund was present when Charles V entered the Imperial Diet at Augsburg on 15 June 1530. On 14 November he granted the Fuggers the right to change their coat of arms to match their new status and on 1 March 1534 granted them the right to mint coins. On 20 June 1535 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor gave the Fuggers the right to call themselves'Counts of Kirchberg, Weißenhorn and Marstetten' and four days Raymund was raised to the Hungarian nobility. On 3 December the same year, Raymund died of a stroke in his doctors' presence - he had been ill since a young age, as shown by his portraits by Holbein and others
The Hagel Family Farm is a farm in Rogers, United States. The farm consists of a 120-acre parcel with several farm buildings, farm fields and wetlands; the farmstead has been in the Hagel family for over 150 years. Its current owner, John Hagel, is a co-founder of the Friends of Minnesota Barns association. John Hagel worked to nominate the farm to the National Register of Historic Places to preserve it as a complete, original farmstead. Susan Roth of Minnesota's State Historic Preservation Office commented, "The Hagel farm has high physical integrity. I'm feeling confident that the board will look approvingly." The farm was listed on the National Register in December 2006. All but one of the original buildings remain intact; the buildings include the farmhouse, a timber-framed mortise and tenon barn with an attached milk house, a two-story saltbox style granary. The bricks for the farmhouse were believed to have been manufactured in Minnesota; the farm had no electricity until 1948. There was no refrigeration in the early days.
Butter and milk were kept in a pit in the yard until they acquired an icebox. The farm was settled by John Hagel's great-great-grandparents and Helena Hagel, who immigrated from Germany and settled 160 acres on January 20, 1858. Around 1890, Peter and Helena divided the farm among their two sons and Paul. Fred and Gertrude Hagel, John's great-grandparents, built the 117-year-old farmhouse, his grandfather Arnold and his father Leroy grew up on the farm. Arnold Hagel died in 1951, his wife Anna Hagel stayed on the farm until she died in 1987. Anna Hagel sold the animals and farm implements. Without the wear and tear of daily farming operations and the need to modernize farming practices, the farm buildings were unchanged since the 1950s. John Hagel could have sold the farmland for suburban development, but was more interested in preserving the farm as a historic site
No. 1 Flying Training School was a school of the Royal Australian Air Force. It was one of the Air Force's original units, dating back to the service's formation in 1921, when it was established at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria. By the early 1930s, the school comprised training and seaplane components, it was re-formed several times in the ensuing years as No. 1 Service Flying Training School in 1940, under the wartime Empire Air Training Scheme. After graduating nearly 3,000 pilots, No. 1 SFTS was disbanded in late 1944, when there was no further requirement to train Australian aircrew for service in Europe. The school was re-established in 1946 as No. 1 FTS at RAAF Station Uranquinty, New South Wales, transferred to Point Cook the following year. Under a restructure of flying training to cope with the demands of the Korean War and Malayan Emergency, No. 1 FTS was re-formed in 1952 as No. 1 Applied Flying Training School. For much of this period the school was responsible for training the RAAF's air traffic controllers.
Its pilot trainees included Army and foreign students as well as RAAF personnel. The RAAF's reorganisation of aircrew training in the early 1950s had led to the formation at Uranquinty of No. 1 Basic Flying Training School, which transferred to Point Cook in 1958. In 1969, No. 1 AFTS was re-formed as No. 2 Flying Training School and No. 1 BFTS was re-formed as No. 1 FTS. Rationalisation of RAAF flying training resulted in the disbandment of No. 1 FTS in 1993. No. 1 Flying Training School was the first unit to be formally established as part of the new Australian Air Force on 31 March 1921. No. 1 FTS was formed from the remnants of Australia's original military flying unit, Central Flying School, at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria. Squadron Leader William Anderson, in charge of the Point Cook base, was No. 1 FTS's first commanding officer. The school's initial complement of staff was 67 airmen. In December 1921, the Australian Air Board prepared to form its first five squadrons and allocate aircraft to each, as well as to the nascent flying school.
The plan was for No. 1 FTS to receive twelve Avro 504Ks and four Sopwith Pups, the squadrons a total of eight Royal Aircraft Factory S. E.5s, eight Airco DH.9s, three Fairey IIIs. Funding problems forced the Air Force to disband the newly raised squadrons on 1 July 1922 and re-form them as flights in a composite squadron under No. 1 FTS. The same month, VC, took command of the school; the inaugural flying course commenced in January 1923. Basic instruction took place on the Avro 504Ks, more advanced or specialised training on the school's other aircraft. Fourteen students commenced the year-long course, twelve graduated; as well as flying, they studied aeronautics, navigation and general military subjects. Squadron Leader Anderson resumed command of No. 1 FTS in 1925. The first Citizen Air Force pilots' course ran from December 1925 to March 1926, 26 of 30 students completing the training. Although 24 accidents occurred, there were no fatalities, leading Cole to remark at the graduation ceremony that the students were either made of India rubber or had learned how to crash "moderately safely".
However, the 1926 Permanent Air Force cadet course was marred by three fatal accidents. The following year, 29 students graduated—thirteen PAF, nine reserve, seven destined for exchange with the Royal Air Force. In June 1928, the school's Avro 504Ks were replaced by de Havilland DH.60 Cirrus Moths. Squadron Leader McNamara resumed command of No. 1 FTS in October 1930. By two sub-units had been raised at Point Cook under the school's auspices: "Fighter Squadron", operating Bristol Bulldogs; as of February 1934, No. 1 FTS was organised into Training Squadron, operating Moths and Westland Wapitis, Fighter Squadron and Seaplane Squadron. Fighter and Seaplane Squadrons were formally established as units that month, but remained under the control of the flying school and were "really little more than flights", according to the official history of the pre-war RAAF; as well as participating in training exercises, Fighter Squadron was employed for aerobatic displays and flag-waving duties. One of No. 1 FTS's leading instructors during the early 1930s, Flight Lieutenant Frederick Scherger, was a flight commander in Fighter Squadron.
Seaplane Squadron undertook naval survey tasks, as well as seaplane training. Fighter Squadron was dissolved in December 1935 when its Bulldogs were transferred to No. 1 Squadron at RAAF Laverton, while Seaplane Squadron continued to function until June 1939, when it was separated to form the nucleus of No. 10 Squadron. In 1932, No. 1 FTS started running two courses each year, the first commencing in January and the second in July. The 1,200 applications for each flying course competed for around twelve places. Wing Commander Hippolyte De La Rue became commanding officer in early 1933; the following year, No. 1 FTS commenced regular courses in signals, air observation, aircraft maintenance. In April 1936, the school took delivery of its first Avro Cadets, procured as an intermediat
O 11 was a O 9-class patrol submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy. The ship was built by Fijenoord shipyard in Rotterdam; the submarine was ordered on 30 August 1921 and laid down in Rotterdam at the shipyard of Fijenoord on 24 December 1922. The launch took place on 19 March 1925. On 18 January 1926 the ship was commissioned in the Dutch navy.21 June 1926, O 11, together with O 9, Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp, Jacob van Heemskerck, Z 7 and Z 8, sailed from Den Helder to the Baltic Sea to visit the ports of Kiel, Göteborg and Trondheim. In 1927 O 11, O 10, Hertog Hendrik, Z 5, Z6, Z 7 and Z 8 made a visit to Norway, she sailed for the Baltic Sea again in 1936 with her sisters O 9, O 10, the coastal defence ship Hertog Hendrik and Z 5. In 1939 O 11 together with her sisters O 9 and O 10 where attached to the coastal division, they acted as the offensive part of Dutch coastal defense. On 6 March 1940 the ship was accidentally rammed by the tugboat BV 3 in Den Helder. In the collision three men of O 11 died.
The boat was raised and its repair was ordered. While under repair Germany invaded the Netherlands and the boat was scuttled to prevent her capture; the Germans ordered its repair. However it was not repaired in time to help the war effort. While still under repair the boat was scuttled again in order to block the entrance of Den Helder harbor. On 10 December 1947 the wreck was sold for scrapping. Description of ship