An Astute Lesson In Oils, for those who do not already know...

[David haffner sr]

1) Why would some food grade oils, such as olive oil seem to fluoresce red?

Answer: Because it contains Beta-Carotene

2) Why does petroleum products, such as crude oil, gasoline ect., fluoresce a blueish white color?

Answer: Anthracene, it is a colorless, polycyclic hydrocarbon that exhibits a blue (400-500 nm peak) fluorescence, under ultraviolet radiation.

3) What is the one common factor with all oils?

Answer: The Urbach Tail.

4) What is an Aromatic Hydrocarbon?

Answer:  The configuration of six carbon atoms in aromatic compounds is known as a benzene ring, after the simplest possible such hydrocarbon, benzene. Aromatic hydrocarbons can be monocyclic (MAH) or polycyclic (PAH).

5) What are the main aromatic hydrocarbons in crude oil?

Answer: BTX (benzene,toluene and xylene.)

6) What is the acceptable PPM discharge for oil in sea water?

Answer: 15PPM

7) What is oil?

Answer: An oil is any neutral, nonpolar chemical substance that is a viscous liquid at ambient temperatures and is both hydrophobic (immiscible with water, literally "water fearing") and lipophilic (miscible with other oils, literally "fat loving"). Oils have a high carbon and hydrogen content and are usually flammable and slippery.

8) Why would you not use Isopropyl alcohol as a solvent for oil analysis?

Answer: Because Isopropyl alcohol is polar, and petroleum is nonpolar.

9) what is the difference between polar and nonpolar?

Answer: The greater the electro negativity difference, the more ionic the bond is. Bonds that are partly ionic are called polar covalent bonds. Nonpolar covalent bonds, with equal sharing of the bond electrons, arise when the electro negativities of the two atoms are equal.

10) If 1 barrel of oil equals 0.16 cubic meters, how many PPM is that?

Answer: 16PPM

[Jeffrey Warren]

Hi, Dave, thanks - where is this information coming from? Is this a list of questions you were seeking answers to? 

Jeff

--
Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David haffner sr]

No jeff, these are answers that I discovered for myself, through my own research and reading.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeffrey Warren]

Thank you for sharing them -- can you share references and/or links so that others can follow? 

[David haffner sr]

The learning comes from using your critical thinking skills, and reading the question carefully in order to know how to search for the answer.

[Gretchen Gehrke]

Hi Dave, 

I think critical thinking skills are important, and I think that they are only highlighted and visible, particularly on a group email when someone walks through the steps and demonstrates those skills. Otherwise, it is simply information regurgitation, rather than capacity-building and/or inviting someone to explore (and possibly constructively critique) the process used. So, I'd encourage you to think about the utility of the post for the group, which could be mutually beneficial on many levels. 

Best, 
Gretchen

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Gretchen Gehrke <gret...@publiclab.org> wrote:

Hi Dave, 

I think critical thinking skills are important, and I think that they are only highlighted and visible, particularly on a group email when someone walks through the steps and demonstrates those skills. Otherwise, it is simply information regurgitation, rather than capacity-building and/or inviting someone to explore (and possibly constructively critique) the process used. 

Best, 

Gretchen

[David haffner sr]

Hey Gretchen, there was a very good reason for me posting this, a lesson in "paying attention." All my questions plus my answers all came from my own research, which has been posted for many months now, in each research note I post, there are very detailed steps and references of the "how" and "why" and "where to find it."

[Gretchen Gehrke]

Hi Dave, 

Providing a "lesson in paying attention" to an opt-in group of peers sounds like it is verging on elitist or entitled to me. I don't want to use this space to be combative -- that is not the purpose of this list. I'd just like to reemphasize that, in my opinion as a member who has opted in to this list, this is meant to be a capacity-building community, and the purpose of the list is to discuss ideas, discuss results, and have conversations rather than one-way deliveries. 

Best, 
Gretchen

[Dan Beavers]

Number 10 is confusing to me. Are you saying that if a barrel worth of
oil, which is 0.16 cubic Meters is dispersed in a cubic meter then the
concentration is 0.16 PPM? PPM is a concentration unit as far as I
know. So 1 PPM would be one unit part per million units part. I seem
to be missing something here.

On 2016-07-28 09:07, David haffner sr wrote:
> 1) Why would some food grade oils, such as olive oil seem to fluoresce red?
>
> Answer: Because it contains Beta-Carotene
>
> 2) Why does petroleum products, such as crude oil, gasoline ect.,
> fluoresce a blueish white color?
>
> Answer: Anthracene, it is a colorless, polycyclic hydrocarbon that
> exhibits a blue (400-500 nm peak) fluorescence, under ultraviolet radiation.
>
> 3) What is the one common factor with all oils?
>
> Answer: The Urbach Tail.
>
> 4) What is an Aromatic Hydrocarbon?
>
> Answer: The configuration of six carbon atoms in aromatic compounds is
> known as a benzene ring, after the simplest possible such hydrocarbon,

> benzene. Aromatic hydrocarbons can be /monocyclic/ (MAH)
> or /polycyclic/ (PAH).

>
> 5) What are the main aromatic hydrocarbons in crude oil?
>
> Answer: BTX (benzene,toluene and xylene.)
>
> 6) What is the acceptable PPM discharge for oil in sea water?
>
> Answer: 15PPM
>
> 7) What is oil?
>

> Answer: An *oil* is any neutral, nonpolar chemical
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance>substance that is a

> viscous liquid at ambient temperatures and is both hydrophobic
> (immiscible with water, literally "water fearing") and lipophilic
> (miscible with other oils, literally "fat loving"). Oils have a high
> carbon and hydrogen content and are usually flammable and slippery.
>
> 8) Why would you not use Isopropyl alcohol as a solvent for oil analysis?
>
> Answer: Because Isopropyl alcohol is polar, and petroleum is nonpolar.
>
> 9) what is the difference between polar and nonpolar?
>

> Answer: The greater the electro negativity *difference*, the more ionic
> the bond is. Bonds that are partly ionic are called *polar* covalent
> bonds. *Nonpolar* covalent bonds, with equal sharing of the bond

> electrons, arise when the electro negativities of the two atoms are equal.
>
> 10) If 1 barrel of oil equals 0.16 cubic meters, how many PPM is that?
>
> Answer: 16PPM
>
>
>
>
>

> --
> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
>
> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
> discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it
> easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your
> work at http://publiclab.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com>.

[David haffner sr]

No Dan, it is 16PPM/16 parts per million

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[David haffner sr]

I'm not begin combative, I am pointing out the fact, that, individuals here are not paying attention to what is begin written and said. Warren, just asked me if I posted those questions because I wanted answers? 

If, he would have bothered to read it, he would have noticed that I had in fact, answered those very questions myself.

[David haffner sr]

1 cubic meter of water equals 1000 liters, so 0.16 cubic meters divided by 1000 liters of water equals 0.00016, which translates to 16 parts per million.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Dan Beavers <d...@beaversenterprises.com> wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Dan Beavers]

That is even more confusing, sorry. 16/16 = 1

> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>

> >
> > Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
> > discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it
> > easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your
> > work at http://publiclab.org
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>

>
> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
> discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make
> it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please
> publish your work at http://publiclab.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
> the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

[David haffner sr]

take 0.16, then divide that number by 1000 and you get 0.00016 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[David haffner sr]

here is another answer Dan, 100 tonnes of sea water = 100,000 litres of sea water.
1 part per million (ppm) = 1 litre of oil in 1 million litres of sea water.
So if the ship stated it discharged 10 liters of oil in 100,000 liters of sea water the ppm is 10 x 10. 
This is 100 ppm concentration of oil in sea water which exceeds the 15 ppm discharge limit.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Jay Holmes]

Hi Dan

I found 10 confusing as well:

> 10) If 1 barrel of oil equals 0.16 cubic meters, how many PPM is that?
>
> Answer: 16PPM

It seems odd to go straight from a volume unit (m3) of a single material (oil) to a concentration which is a ratio of things (like oil:water).

Jay

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Jay Holmes]

Ah! 

In the example you just gave you have “10 liters of oil in 100,000 liters of sea water".

In your initial example you said “If 1 barrel of oil equals 0.16 cubic meters” there is no mention of an amount water here, just a “barrel of oil”. 

Jay

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[David haffner sr]

Ha, see, that is what I am talking about, paying attention. I intentionally left out that little bit og information to see who would catch on.

[Jay Holmes]

So this was a quiz.

Nice, so what were you meaning to say, if there was .16 m3 of oil in a 55 gallon barrel and the rest was water the concentration would be 16 ppm???

Jay

[Yagiz Sutcu]

A book suggestion :)

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Elitism-William-Henry-III/dp/0385479433

-yagiz

[David haffner sr]

The point was, instead of begin given the origins of the answers, how well the origins could be located. 

[David haffner sr]

Thank you Yagiz, for that link! I just read the description of the book, and I am in full agreement with its premise, I will read it.

[Gretchen Gehrke]

Hi folks, 

I've not read that book, Yagiz. I'm wondering whether or not you posted it in satire though? I personally believe in respecting people's experience etc (and being respectful of different kinds of experience), but straight-up elitism seems toxic. If we want to discuss the merits of elitism and/or egotism, let's do it over beers and pull in examples from historic and current world politics and events. 

I'd be surprised if anyone joined Public Lab looking for a place to promote, or be subject to elitist attitudes. Knowledge exchange and collective growth? Yes. Let's work on that.

Best, 
Gretchen

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Gretchen Gehrke <gret...@publiclab.org> wrote:

Hi folks, 

Yagiz, I've not read that book. I'm wondering whether or not you posted it in satire though? I personally believe in respecting people's experience etc (and being respectful of different kinds of experience), but straight-up elitism seems toxic. If we want to discuss the merits of elitism and/or egotism, let's do it over beers and pull in examples from historic and current world politics and events. 

I'd be surprised if anyone joined Public Lab looking for a place to promote, or be subject to elitist attitudes. Knowledge exchange and collective growth? Yes. Let's work on that.

Best, 

Gretchen 

[Yagiz Sutcu]

Let's discuss (if you want) more after you read it then :) Looks like there is a confusion in PL community about what is elitism...

-yagiz

[David haffner sr]

I am the last person who would ever be an "elitist," I am a realist, and live in the real world, I live in a world where my words are not censored or my thought processes are not curtailed by  a meme (i.e.,"micro-aggression".) 

I really would love a clear explanation of what is respectful behaviour?

Is disrespectful behaviour imparting knowledge where it already should have been residing? I truly do not see the toxicity in that. This must be that new sociological theory begin taught in our educational system today, pleasing everybody all of the time, never hurting anyone's feelings and certainly paying close attention to those important "lists," about which words are acceptable now and which ones are very naughty.

If you want to learn and grow in knowledge, you have to seek it out, you have to read and study, you have to experiment for yourself and see if your results are the same as someone else's of higher stature. I don't think this is very toxic at all, what I think is, we have a culture of people who think they are entiltled to the answers at their beck an call. 

You learn by doing, OJT (on the job training,) that training can consist of your mind in conjunction with real world experience, not theory.   

[Liz Barry]

Hi Dave, 

Thanks for engaging with everyone here. 

Many people have come together to write up how we can work together humanely and at scale in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azLoPNGF7oo9WKmlj4n_bEcZWI2PMQpcf2Si8VXPZfs/edit

There are other open science lists that do not hold a respectful place of interaction and have become like clubhouses with gate-keeping behavior. I do not want this list to go the way of those unmoderated spaces where people who are getting started are told to "go away" when they ask a basic question because they "haven't done the work yet" or "should" have already known something. 

No one here is mandated to respond to questions coming into the list. At the same time no one is allowed to dismiss/ridicule questions asked or dismiss/ridicule the person who is asking. 

How does this sound?

Liz

--

Liz Barry
director of urban environment
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

[David haffner sr]

I have read the document previously, and I have not violated one aspect of it.

[Dan Beavers]

Perhaps there was a fallacy in question 10 that just required a correction?

Dave, you appear to be concerned with what you perceive as something
lacking with the amount or quality of the reaction to your efforts. As
I am sure you know, Public Lab is a large and growing group of very
diverse people. The lack of feedback does not indicate that people are
ignoring you. It could mean a number of things some of which COULD be
that your are not clear, the reader does not have the background to
understand you, the subject may be of interest but not at a level to
warrant a response at this time (someone may find it useful after a
significant time has passed), your area of interest does not coincide
sufficiently with the reader's, etc. The level of response to your
research notes is not a reliable measure of its intrinsic worth in my
opinion. I would encourage you to continue documenting your research
using Public Lab tools. I believe our tools are improving and you may
choose in the future to reformat your research using some future
feature/s resulting in a better outcome (what ever that is) for everyone.

On 2016-07-28 12:42, David haffner sr wrote:
> The point was, instead of begin given the origins of the answers, how
> well the origins could be located.
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Jay Holmes <jho...@igc.org
> <mailto:jho...@igc.org>> wrote:
>
> So this was a quiz.
>
> Nice, so what were you meaning to say, if there was .16 m3 of oil in
> a 55 gallon barrel and the rest was water the concentration would be
> 16 ppm???
>
> Jay
>
>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:07 PM, David haffner sr

>> <dhaff...@gmail.com <mailto:dhaff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Ha, see, that is what I am talking about, paying attention. I
>> intentionally left out that little bit og information to see who
>> would catch on.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jay Holmes <jho...@igc.org
>> <mailto:jho...@igc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Ah!
>>
>> In the example you just gave you have “10 liters of oil in
>> 100,000 liters of sea water".
>>
>> In your initial example you said “If 1 barrel of oil equals
>> 0.16 cubic meters” there is no mention of an amount water
>> here, just a “barrel of oil”.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:57 AM, David haffner sr

>>> <dhaff...@gmail.com <mailto:dhaff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> here is another answer Dan, 100 tonnes of sea water = 100,000
>>> litres of sea water.
>>> 1 part per million (ppm) = 1 litre of oil in 1 million litres
>>> of sea water.
>>> So if the ship stated it discharged 10 liters of oil in
>>> 100,000 liters of sea water the ppm is 10 x 10.
>>> This is 100 ppm concentration of oil in sea water which
>>> exceeds the 15 ppm discharge limit.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Dan Beavers
>>> <d...@beaversenterprises.com

>>> <mailto:d...@beaversenterprises.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That is even more confusing, sorry. 16/16 = 1
>>>
>>> On 2016-07-28 10:29, David haffner sr wrote:
>>> > No Dan, it is 16PPM/16 parts per million
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Dan Beavers
>>> > <d...@beaversenterprises.com
>>> <mailto:d...@beaversenterprises.com>

>>> <mailto:d...@beaversenterprises.com

>>> > <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>>
>>> > >
>>> > > Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
>>> > > discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it
>>> > > easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your

>>> > > work at http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>>> > > ---
>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > > Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> > > an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> >

>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:plots-spectrometry%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:plots-spectrometry%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

>>> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>

>>> > <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>>
>>> >
>>> > Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
>>> > discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make
>>> > it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please

>>> > publish your work at http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>>> > ---
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
>>> > the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> > plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> >

>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:plots-spectrometry%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.

>>> > For more options, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Post to this group at
>>> plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists)
>>> are great for
>>> > discussion, but to get attribution, open source your
>>> work, and make it
>>> > easy for others to find and cite your contributions,
>>> please publish your

>>> > work at http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>>> > ---
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the Google
>>> > Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
>>> emails from it, send
>>> > an email to
>>> plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> > <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are
>>> great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source
>>> your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite
>>> your contributions, please publish your work at

>>> http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a
>>> topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send
>>> an email to
>>> plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrometry%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

>>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are
>>> great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source
>>> your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your
>>> contributions, please publish your work at

>>> http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>>> it, send an email to
>>> plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are
>> great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your
>> work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your
>> contributions, please publish your work at

>> http://publiclab.org <http://publiclab.org/>

>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a
>> topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an
>> email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great
>> for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and
>> make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions,
>> please publish your work at http://publiclab.org

>> <http://publiclab.org/>

>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:plots-sp...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for
> discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make
> it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please
> publish your work at http://publiclab.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
> the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/RPCuFlaoYqg/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com

[Dave Stoft]

Yes, Dan, the nature of questions can sometimes confuse the issue or point.
They are sometimes phrased like asking "Is it further to New York or by plane?

Generally the best method to avoid such digressions is to focus on the essential concept; in this case 'ppm' (parts per million). However, ppm is unitless (as was pointed out earlier) which means that the author of a ppm reference is required, by accuracy, to specify the units of the numerator and denominator of that ratio -- generally mass/mass, mol/mol, volume/volume, etc. Environmental contaminants (eg. oil) is often rated in ppm (or ppb) where toxicity is of concern; but there will also be some reference to testing units such as mg/L in the report. This is necessary as ppm (mg/L) is very different from ppm (umol/mol) when the contaminant and the substance (eg. water) have very different specific weights. Using "standardized" unit ratios for specific scientific measurements is necessary as well as more convenient than either random units or metric tonnes (even if the numerical ratios were the same). This helps avoid errors, improves clarity and makes comparisons easier.

Cheers,
Dave

[David haffner sr]

No, there was no fallacy in question 10, I just left out critical information.

How to convert grams/liter to ppm

The concentration C in parts-per million (ppm) is equal to 1000 times the concentration C in grams per kilogram (g/kg) and equal to 1000000 times the concentration C in grams per liter (g/L), divided by the solution density ρ in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m³):

C_(ppm) = 1000 × C_(g/kg) = 10⁶ × C_(g/L) / ρ_(kg/m3₎

In water solution, the concentration C in parts-per million (ppm) is equal to 1000 times the concentration C in grams per kilogram (g/kg) and equal to 1000000 times the concentration C in grams per liter (g/L), divided by the water solution density at temperature of 20ºC 998.2071 in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m³) and approximately equal to 1000 times the concentration C in milligrams per liter (mg/L):

C_(ppm) = 1000 × C_(g/kg) = 10⁶ × C_(g/L) / 998.2071_(kg/m3₎ ≈ 1000 ×C_(g/L)

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.