[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:**Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com****Subject**:**Re: Hardness****From**:**Bill Warner <lww at ictech_net>**- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:09:54 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <199806251948.PAA01380 at acme_actwin.com>

>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:24:29 EDT >From: FKing46 at aol_com >Subject: Re: Hardness > >For our purposes, we use the terms "mg/l" and "PPM" interchangeably. But in >absolute terms, this is not true, is it? You are correct, it is not true in general. When dealing with solutions, ppm is typically calculated by mass, so the values of mg/L and ppm are equivalent iff[*] the density of the solution in question is exactly 1 g/mL. Since the density of aquarium water is sufficiently close to 1 g/mL, using them interchangeably in this context is usually "safe". Especially given the precision of most test kits. >Also, isn't there some difference of opinion between some countries as to >which is larger - million or billion? This may lead to misunderstanding when >using PPM. Hmm, never heard of such a thing. >And finally, we toss about the terms mg/l, PPM and Metric system as if they >were all consistent. One would think that mg/l would be a Metric system >measure but isn't "parts per million" rather system independent? Yeah, I suppose you could say that. Strictly speaking, a quantity expressed as ppm is dimensionless (eg. mass/mass). Parts per million and parts per billion, etc., are analogous to percent, where percent is just a special name for parts per hundred. >Just a semantic nit, really. And for the truly nit picking types among us, according to IUPAC recommendations the preferred symbol for the liter is 'L' rather than 'l'. :-) [*] iff == if and only if --Bill

- Prev by Date:
**Fertilizer Analysis** - Next by Date:
**Re: Hardness** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Hardness** - Next by thread:
**Re: Hardness** - Index(es):