1050 EXPRESSION OF RESULTS*
1050 A. Units
Standard Methods uses the International System of Units (SI). ^{1}^{,}^{2} Concentration units for chemical and physical results are generally expressed in mass units/L. The numerical values range from 0.1 to 999.9 mg/L. If the values are less, express them as micrograms per liter ( g/L) and if greater as grams per liter (g/L), with the numerical values adjusted accordingly. Record and report all analytical results to the proper number of signif icant ﬁgures (see 1050B).
1. Radioactivity
For information on reporting radiological results, see Section
7020D.
2. Mass
a. Mass concentrations: Mass concentrations can be expressed in terms of weight/volume (w/v), weight/weight (w/w), and volume/volume (v/v). ^{3} Those commonly used in Standard Meth ods are listed in Table 1050:I. Most analysis results are reported in terms of w/v, but some may be expressed in terms of w/w. Since analyses usually are performed for analytes in solution it may be necessary to report results in reference terms other than solution volume, such as milligrams per kilogram, parts per million, or percent by weight. These terms are computed as follows:
mg/kg ^{m}^{g}^{/}^{L}
ppm by weight ^{m}^{g}^{/}^{L}
% by weight
^{m}^{g}^{/}^{L}
10 000
where is the density of the sample solution or solid mixture being measured, in kilograms per liter (often reported as the same numeric value as grams per milliliter). The relative density of water can be computed from Table 1050:II ^{4} using the densities at t°C and 4°C. Weight per unit weight (w/w) is deﬁned as mass of analyte per total (wet) mass of solution or mixture. In some cases, the weight fraction results may be relative to total dry mass rather than total wet mass. The units would be multiples of (g analyte/kg dry). This is referred to as “moisturefree basis”; report concentration of total solids at the same time.
* Reviewed by Standard Methods Committee, 2006. Joint Task Group: 22nd Edition—L. Malcolm Baker (chair), Stephen W. Johnson, David F. Parkhurst.
TABLE 1050:I. COMMONLY USED EXPRESSIONS of MASS CONCENTRATION
Unit of Expression
Proportion 
Value 
w/v 
w/w 
v/v 

Parts per hundred (%) Parts per thousand ( ^{0} / _{0}_{0} ) Parts per million (ppm) Parts per billion (ppb) 
10 
^{} ^{2} 
g/dL 
g/100 g 
mL/dL 
10 
^{} ^{3} 
g/L 
g/kg 
mL/L 

10 
^{} ^{6} 
mg/L 
mg/kg 
L/L 

10 ^{} ^{9} 
g/L 
g/kg 
nL/L 
Adapted from: MILLS, I., T. C VITAS, K. H OMANN, N. KALLAY & K. K UCHITSU. 1993. Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, Oxford, U.K.
b. Other concentration units: To obtain mass concentrations,
the analyst may have to compute intermediate results in terms of mass, moles, volume, or equivalent. The most commonly used intermediate forms are deﬁned as follows:
1) Mass fraction—analyte mass divided by the total mass of the solution or mixture, expressed as kg/kg; 2) Volume fraction—analyte volume divided by total volume of sample where measurements are at equal pressure and temperature, expressed as L/L; 3) Mole fraction—number of moles of analyte per total moles in solution; 4) Molar concentration ( molarity)—number of moles of ana lyte contained in 1 L solution, designated by M ; 5) Molal concentration (molality)—number of moles of ana lyte dissolved in 1 kg solvent; 6) Normality—number of equivalents (see ¶ c below) of ana lyte dissolved and diluted to a 1L volume, designated by
N . Also see ¶ d below.
c. Equivalency: The unit milligramequivalents per liter, or
millequivalents per liter (me/L), can be valuable for making analytical and watertreatment calculations and for checking analyses by anion– cation balance. Table 1050:III presents factors for converting concentrations of common ions from milligrams per liter to milliequivalents per liter, and vice versa. The term “milliequivalent” represents 0.001 of an equivalent weight, which is deﬁned as the weight of the ion (sum of the atomic weights of the atoms making up the ion) divided by the number of charges normally associated with the particular ion. The factors for converting results from milligrams per liter to mil liequivalents per liter were computed by dividing the ion charge by weight of the ion. Conversely, factors for converting results from milliequivalents per liter to milligrams per liter were calculated by dividing the weight of the ion by the ion charge. To deﬁne equivalents, ^{5} chemical reactions must be broken down into several types. 1) Neutralization reactions ^{6} —The equivalent weight of a sub stance in a neutralization reaction is the weight of acid that will furnish, react with, or be chemically equivalent to, one mole of hydrogen ion in the reaction in which it occurs. For example, the equivalent weight of an acid is its molar mass (molecular weight)
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
1
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
T ABLE 1050:II. DENSITY OF WATER FREE FROM DISSOLVED ATMOSPHERIC GASES , AT A PRESSURE OF 101.325 PA
Density of Water at Given Temperature kg/m ^{3}
Temperature, t _{6}_{8} * °C
.0 
.1 
.2 
.3 
.4 
.5 
.6 
.7 
.8 
.9 

0 
999.8426 
8493 
8558 
8622 
8683 
8743 
8801 
8857 
8912 
8964 
1 
999.9015 
9065 
9112 
9158 
9202 
9244 
9284 
9323 
9360 
9395 
2 
999.9429 
9461 
9491 
9519 
9546 
9571 
9595 
9616 
9636 
9655 
3 
999.9672 
9687 
9700 
9712 
9722 
9731 
9738 
9743 
9747 
9749 
4 
999.9750 
9748 
9746 
9742 
9736 
9728 
9719 
9709 
9696 
9683 
5 
999.9668 
9651 
9632 
9612 
9591 
9568 
9544 
9518 
9490 
9461 
6 
999.9430 
9398 
9365 
9330 
9293 
9255 
9216 
9175 
9132 
9088 
7 
999.9043 
8996 
8948 
8898 
8847 
8794 
8740 
8684 
8627 
8569 
8 
999.8509 
8448 
8385 
8321 
8256 
8189 
8121 
8051 
7980 
7908 
9 
999.7834 
7759 
7682 
7604 
7525 
7444 
7362 
7279 
7194 
7108 
10 
999.7021 
6932 
6842 
6751 
6658 
6564 
6468 
6372 
6274 
6174 
11 
999.6074 
5972 
5869 
5764 
5658 
5551 
5443 
5333 
5222 
5110 
12 
999.4996 
4882 
4766 
4648 
4530 
4410 
4289 
4167 
4043 
3918 
13 
999.3792 
3665 
3536 
3407 
3276 
3143 
3010 
2875 
2740 
2602 
14 
999.2464 
2325 
2184 
2042 
1899 
1755 
1609 
1463 
1315 
1166 
15 
999.1016 
0864 
0712 
0558 
0403 
0247 
0090 
9932† 
9772† 
9612† 
16 
998.9450 
9287 
9123 
8957 
8791 
8623 
8455 
8285 
8114 
7942 
17 
998.7769 
7595 
7419 
7243 
7065 
6886 
6706 
6525 
6343 
6160 
18 
998.5976 
5790 
5604 
5416 
5228 
5038 
4847 
4655 
4462 
4268 
19 
998.4073 
3877 
3680 
3481 
3282 
3081 
2880 
2677 
2474 
2269 
20 
998.2063 
1856 
1649 
1440 
1230 
1019 
0807 
0594 
0380 
0164 
21 
997.9948 
9731 
9513 
9294 
9073 
8852 
8630 
8406 
8182 
7957 
22 
997.7730 
7503 
7275 
7045 
6815 
6584 
6351 
6118 
5883 
5648 
23 
997.5412 
5174 
4936 
4697 
4456 
4215 
3973 
3730 
3485 
3240 
24 
997.2994 
2747 
2499 
2250 
2000 
1749 
1497 
1244 
0990 
0735 
25 
997.0480 
0223 
9965† 
9707† 
9447† 
9186† 
8925† 
8663† 
8399† 
8135† 
26 
996.7870 
7604 
7337 
7069 
6800 
6530 
6259 
5987 
5714 
5441 
27 
996.5166 
4891 
4615 
4337 
4059 
3780 
3500 
3219 
2938 
2655 
28 
996.2371 
2087 
1801 
1515 
1228 
0940 
0651 
0361 
0070 
9778* 
29 
995.9486 
9192 
8898 
8603 
8306 
8009 
7712 
7413 
7113 
6813 
30 
995.6511 
6209 
5906 
5602 
5297 
4991 
4685 
4377 
4069 
3760 
31 
995.3450 
3139 
2827 
2514 
2201 
1887 
1572 
1255 
0939 
0621 
32 
995.0302 
9983† 
9663† 
9342† 
9020† 
8697† 
8373† 
8049† 
7724† 
7397† 
33 
994.7071 
6743 
6414 
6085 
5755 
5423 
5092 
4759 
4425 
4091 
34 
994.3756 
3420 
3083 
2745 
2407 
2068 
1728 
1387 
1045 
0703 
35 
994.0359 
0015 
9671† 
9325† 
8978† 
8631† 
8283† 
7934† 
7585† 
7234† 
36 
993.6883 
6531 
6178 
5825 
5470 
5115 
4759 
4403 
4045 
3687 
37 
993.3328 
2968 
2607 
2246 
1884 
1521 
1157 
0793 
0428 
0062 
38 
992.9695 
9328 
8960 
8591 
8221 
7850 
7479 
7107 
6735 
6361 
39 
992.5987 
5612 
5236 
4860 
4483 
4105 
3726 
3347 
2966 
2586 
40 
992.2204 
* t _{6}_{8} represents temperature, according to International Practical Temperature Scale 1968. † The leading ﬁgure decreases by 1.0. Source: M ARSH, K.N., ed. 1987. Recommended Reference Materials for the Realization of Physicochemical Properties, Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, Oxford, U.K.
divided by the number of hydrogen atoms (equivalent number) contained in the acid. Thus, for acids that have reacted com pletely, the equivalent weight of HCl and HNO _{3} would equal the molar mass; the equivalent weight of H _{2} SO _{4} and H _{2} CO _{3} would equal the molar mass divided by 2 and the equivalent weight for H _{3} PO _{4} would equal molar mass divided by 3. If the chemical formula is written out for the reaction of an acid with a base, the equivalent amounts for each compound in the reaction are obtained by dividing each stoichiometric coef ﬁcient in the equation by the equivalent number. ^{7} For example, in the equation:
H _{2} SO _{4} 2NaOH 3 Na _{2} SO _{4} 2H _{2} O
dividing by the equivalent number, 2, yields:
H _{2} SO _{4} 2NaOH
2
2
Na 2 SO 4
2
2H _{2} O
2
and reducing to lowest terms yields:
H _{2} SO _{4} NaOH
2
1
Na 2 SO 4 H 2 O
2
1
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
2
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
TABLE 1050:III. CONVERSION FACTORS *
(Milligrams per Liter – Milliequivalents per Liter)
Ion 
Ion 

(Cation) 
me/L mg/L 
mg/L me/L 
(Anion) 
me/L mg/L 
mg/L me/L 
Al ^{3} ^{} 
0.111 2 
8.994 
BO _{2} ^{} Br Cl ^{} ^{} 
0.023 36 
42.81 
B ^{3} ^{} 
0.277 5 
3.604 
0.012 52 
79.90 

Ba ^{2} ^{} Ca ^{2} ^{} Cr ^{3} ^{} 
0.014 56 
68.66 
0.028 21 
35.45 

0.049 90 
20.04 
CO _{3} ^{2} ^{} 
0.033 33 
30.00 

0.057 70 
17.33 
CrO _{4} ^{2} ^{} F ^{} HCO _{3} ^{} HPO _{4} ^{2} ^{} 
0.017 24 
58.00 

0.052 64 
19.00 

Cu ^{2} ^{} Fe ^{2} ^{} Fe ^{3} ^{} H K ^{} ^{} 
0.031 47 
31.77 
0.016 39 
61.02 

0.035 81 
27.92 
0.020 84 
47.99 

0.053 72 
18.62 
H _{2} PO _{4} ^{} HS ^{} HSO _{3} ^{} HSO _{4} ^{} I ^{} NO _{2} ^{} 
0.010 31 
96.99 

0.992 1 
1.008 
0.030 24 
33.07 

0.025 58 
39.10 
0.012 33 
81.07 

0.010 30 
97.07 

Li ^{} Mg ^{2} ^{} Mn ^{2} ^{} Mn ^{4} ^{} Na ^{} NH _{4} ^{} Pb ^{2} ^{} Sr ^{2} ^{} Zn ^{2} ^{} 
0.144 1 
6.941 
0.007 880 
126.9 

0.082 29 
12.15 
0.021 74 
46.01 

0.036 40 
27.47 
NO _{3} ^{} 
0.016 13 
62.00 

0.072 81 
13.73 
OH ^{} 
0.058 80 
17.01 

0.043 50 
22.99 
PO _{4} ^{3} ^{} S ^{2} ^{} 
0.031 59 
31.66 

0.055 44 
18.04 
0.062 37 
16.03 

0.009 653 
103.6 
_{3} ^{2} ^{} SiO SO _{3} ^{2} ^{} 
0.026 29 
38.04 

0.022 83 
43.81 
0.024 98 
40.03 

0.030 59 
32.70 
SO _{4} ^{2} ^{} 
0.020 82 
48.03 
* Factors are based on ion charge and not on redox reactions that may be possible for certain of these ions. Cations and anions are listed separately in alphabetical order.
Thus, onehalf formula weight of H _{2} SO _{4} and Na _{2} SO _{4} , and one formula weight of NaOH and H _{2} O are equivalent weights in this case. In some cases, the reaction may not go to completion and the following equivalent entities are obtained.
H _{2} CO _{3} NaOH 3 NaHCO _{3} H _{2} O
Because only one hydrogen was used, the equivalent number is 1.
H
_{2} CO _{3}
NaOH
NaHCO _{3}
H
2 O
1
1
1
1
If the cation of the base is multivalent, the number of equiv alents is calculated similarly. For example:
3HCl Al(OH) _{3} 3 AlCl _{3} 3H _{2} O
HCl
Al(OH) _{3}
AlCl _{3}
H
2 O
1
3
3
1
Thus, the equivalent number is equal to the number of hy droxyl groups in a compound. 2) Precipitation and complex reactions—In these reactions the equivalents are equal to the weight of substance that will furnish, react with, or be chemically equivalent to one mole of univalent cation in the precipitate or complex formed. An example of a precipitation reaction is:
BaCl _{2} Na _{2} SO _{4} 3 BaSO _{4} 2NaCl
BaCl _{2}
2
Na 2 SO 4
2
BaSO _{4}
NaCl
2
1
Examples of reactions with complexes are:
AgNO _{3} 2KCN 3 Ag(CN) ^{} _{} KNO _{3} K ^{}
2
AgNO _{3} 2KCN
Ag(CN)
2
KNO _{3} K ^{}
1
1
1
1
1
2AgNO _{3} 2KCN 3 2AgCN 2KNO _{3}
2AgNO _{3} 
2KCN 
2AgCN 
2KNO _{3} 

2 
2 
2 
2 

AgNO _{3} 
KCN 
AgCN 
KNO _{3} 

1 
1 
1 
1 
NiSO _{4} 4KCN 3 Ni(CN) ^{2} _{4} ^{} K _{2} SO _{4} 2K ^{}
NiSO _{4} 
4KCN 
2 Ni(CN) _{4}

K 2 SO 4 
2K ^{} 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

NiSO _{4} 
2KCN 
2 Ni(CN) _{4}

K 
2 SO 4 
K 
^{} 

2 
1 
2 
2 
1 
3) Oxidation–reduction reactions—In these reactions the equivalent weight of a substance is the weight that will furnish, react with, or be chemically equivalent to one elec tron transferred. First, determine the number of electrons transferred in a redox reaction by writing out a balanced equation and the reduction and oxidation halfreactions. For example:
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
3
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
5Na _{2} C _{2} O _{4} 2KMnO _{4} 8H _{2} SO _{4} 3 5Na _{2} SO _{4} 2MnSO _{4}
z _{1} V _{1} M _{1} z _{2} V _{2} M _{2}
K _{2} SO _{4} 10CO _{2} 8H _{2} O
5Na _{2} C _{2} O _{4} 5H _{2} SO _{4} 3 5Na _{2} SO _{4} 10CO _{2} 10H ^{} 10 e ^{}
2KMnO _{4} 3H _{2} SO _{4} 10H ^{} 10 e ^{} 3 2MnSO _{4} K _{2} SO _{4} 8H _{2} O
Then divide the stoichiometric equation coefﬁcients of the complete balanced equation by the number of electrons trans ferred in the halfreaction equations (in this case, 10) and reduce the fractions to yield:
where:
z equivalent number and
M molarity of substance in solution.
This relationship can be used to compute molarities or vol umes of reagents being compared with one another. For exam ple, the above equation could be reduced to the following for potassium permanganate (1) and sodium oxalate (2).
Na _{2} C _{2} O _{4} KMnO _{4} 4H 2 SO 4 Na 2 SO 4
2
5
5
2
MnSO _{4}
K
2 SO 4
CO _{2} 4H _{2} O
5
10
1
5 3. p Functions
5 V _{1} M _{1} 2 V _{2} M _{2}
With these quantities, only one electron is transferred, and thus the amounts represent the equivalents. In this example the equivalent weights of these compounds in the reaction can be computed as follows:
Equivalent weight molecular weight g/mole equivalent number
Concentrations can be reported in the form of p functions (e.g., pH). This form is used for expressing values when the analyte concentration varies over orders of magnitude. The pX concept is deﬁned ^{8}^{,}^{9} in terms of analyte activity, rather than concentra tion, as follows:
Equivalent weight KMnO _{4} ^{K}^{M}^{n}^{O} ^{4}
5
158.04 g/mole
5 where:
pX log (a _{x} )
31.61 g/equivalent
Equivalent weight Na _{2} C _{2} O _{4} ^{N}^{a} ^{2} ^{C} ^{2} ^{O} ^{4}
2
134.00 g/mole
2
a _{x} activity of analyte X in solution.
Activity coefﬁcients relate activity to concentration:
67.00 g/equivalent
pX log (c _{x} _{x} /c ^{o} )
d. Normality: Normality, as deﬁned in ¶ b 6) above, may be calculated as follows:
Normality
weight of substance
(equivalent weight of substance)(liters of solution)
The normality concept allows substances to be compared with one another stoichiometrically through the relationship.
where:
V _{1} N _{1} V _{2} N _{2}
V 
volume, mL or L, 
N 
normality, and 
1, 2 compound 1 or 2.
If one knows the values of three of the variables, then the fourth can be computed. There is a trend to move from the normality ^{6} concept because of possible ambiguities in determining normalities. These ambi guities arise because a substance being compared might have more than one computed normality concentration (e.g., potas sium cyanide when it reacts with silver ion) and still be in the same concentration. The above equation relating volume and normality of one substance to those of another can be written using the following equation in terms of molarity:
where:
c _{x} molar concentration of x , mole/L _{x} activity coefficient, dimensionless, and
c° molar concentration at standard state, mole/L.
With the development of electrode measurement technol ogy, pH and other p functions have become more commonly used, especially for very low concentrations of analytes. However, the electrode measures only activity, a _{x} , and not concentration, c _{x} , directly. The DebyeHu¨ckel equation provides a way to estimate the activity coefﬁcients in lowionicstrength solutions of 0.001M or less. This equation, ^{4}^{,}^{1}^{0} ^{–}^{1}^{2} which relates concentration to activity coefﬁcient, is:
where:
log _{i} ^{A} ^{z} ^{i} 2 ^{I} 1/2
1 B I ^{1}^{/}^{2}
_{I} analyte ion activity coefficient, z _{i} charge on ion species, I ionic strength of all the ions in solution ^{1} ⁄2 c _{i} z _{i} ^{2} , mole/L, radius of ionic atmosphere, picometers (see Table 1050:IV for values), and A, B DebyeHu¨ckel equation constants (see Table 1050:V for values given by temperature and molar or molal concentration).
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
4
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
TABLE 1050:IV. EFFECTIVE HYDRATED RADIUS FOR COMMON IONS
Type and Charge of Ion
Ion
Ion Size, pm
Inorganic, 1 
H 
Li ^{} 

Na ^{} , CdCl ^{} , ClO _{2} ^{} , IO _{3} ^{} , HCO _{3} ^{} , H _{2} PO _{4} ^{} , HSO _{3} ^{} , H _{2} AsO _{4} ^{} , Co(NH _{3} ) _{4} (NO _{2} ) _{2} ^{} 

OH ^{} , F ^{} , SCN ^{} , OCN ^{} , HS ^{} , ClO _{3} ^{} , ClO _{4} ^{} , BrO _{3} ^{} , IO _{4} ^{} , MnO _{4} ^{} K ^{} , Cl ^{} , Br ^{} , I ^{} , CN ^{} , NO _{2} ^{} , NO _{3} ^{} Rb ^{} , Cs ^{} , NH _{4} ^{} , Tl ^{} , Ag ^{} 

Inorganic, 2 
Mg ^{2} ^{} , Be ^{2} ^{} 
Ca ^{2} ^{} , Cu ^{2} ^{} , Zn ^{2} ^{} , Sn ^{2} ^{} , Mn ^{2} ^{} , Fe ^{2} ^{} , Ni ^{2} ^{} , Co ^{2} ^{} Sr ^{2} ^{} , Ba ^{2} ^{} , Cd ^{2} ^{} , Hg ^{2} ^{} , S ^{2} ^{} , S _{2} O _{4} ^{2} ^{} , WO _{4} ^{2} ^{} Pb ^{2} ^{} , CO _{3} ^{2} ^{} , SO _{3} ^{2} ^{} , MoO _{4} ^{2} ^{} , Co(NH _{3} ) _{5} Cl ^{2} ^{} , Fe(CN) _{5} NO ^{2} ^{} 

Hg _{2} ^{2} ^{} , SO _{4} ^{2} ^{} , S _{2} O _{3} ^{2} ^{} , S _{2} O _{6} ^{2} ^{} , S _{2} O _{8} ^{2} ^{} , SeO _{4} ^{2} ^{} , CrO _{4} ^{2} ^{} , HPO _{4} ^{2} ^{} 

Inorganic, 3 
Al ^{3} ^{} , Fe ^{3} ^{} , Cr ^{3} ^{} , Sc ^{3} ^{} , Y ^{3} ^{} , In ^{3} ^{} , lanthanides* 
PO _{4} ^{3} ^{} , Fe(CN) _{6} ^{3} ^{} , Cr(NH _{3} ) _{6} ^{3} ^{} , Co(NH _{3} ) _{6} ^{3} ^{} , Co(NH _{3} ) _{5} H _{2} O ^{3} ^{} 

Inorganic, 4 
Th ^{4} ^{} , Zr ^{4} ^{} , Ce ^{4} ^{} , Sn ^{4} ^{} Fe(CN) _{6} ^{4} ^{} 
Organic, 1 
HCOO ^{} , H _{2} citrate ^{} , CH _{3} NH _{3} ^{} , (CH _{3} ) _{2} NH _{2} ^{} NH _{3} ^{} CH _{2} COOH, (CH _{3} ) _{3} NH ^{} , C _{2} H _{5} NH _{3} ^{} CH _{3} COO ^{} , CH _{2} ClCOO ^{} , (CH _{3} ) _{4} N ^{} , (C _{2} H _{5} ) _{2} NH _{2} ^{} , NH _{2} CH _{2} COO ^{} CHCl _{2} COO ^{} , CCl _{3} COO ^{} , (C _{2} H _{5} ) _{3} NH ^{} , (C _{3} H _{7} )NH ^{3} ^{} C _{6} H _{5} COO ^{} , C _{6} H _{4} OHCOO ^{} , C _{6} H _{4} ClCOO ^{} , C _{6} H _{5} CH _{2} COO ^{} , CH _{2} CHCH _{2} COO ^{} , (CH _{3} ) _{2} CHCHCOO ^{} , (C _{2} H _{5} ) _{4} N ^{} , (C 3 H 7 ) 2 NH 2 ^{} [OC _{6} H _{2} (NO _{3} ) _{3} ] ^{} , (C _{3} H _{7} ) _{3} NH ^{} , CH _{3} OC _{6} H _{4} COO ^{} (C _{6} H _{5} ) _{2} CHCOO ^{} , (C _{3} H _{7} ) _{4} N ^{} 
Organic, 2 
(COO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} , Hcitrate ^{2} ^{} H _{2} C(COO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} , (CH _{2} COO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} , (CHOHCOO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} C _{6} H _{4} (COO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} , H _{2} C(CH _{2} COO) _{2} ^{2} ^{} , CH _{2} CH _{2} COO _{2} ^{2} ^{} [OOC(CH _{2} ) _{5} COO] ^{2} ^{} , [OOC(CH _{2} ) _{6} COO] ^{2} ^{} , Congo red anion ^{2} ^{} 
Organic, 3 
Citrate ^{3} ^{} 
900
800
700
600
500
450
400
350
300
250
800
700
600
500
450
400
900
500
400
1100
500
350
400
450
500
600
700
800
450
500
600
700
500
* Elements 57–71 in the periodic table. S OURCE: Data from K IELLAND, J. 1937. Individual activity coefﬁcients of ions in aqueous solutions. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. , 59:1675; table in H ARRIS, D.C. 1982. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, N.Y.
Example:
Compute the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution of pure water with sufﬁcient potassium chloride to make it 0.1M. The measured pH is 6.98 at 25°C. The ionic strength of the solution is
I 1/2 _{} c _{i} z _{i}
2
I 1/2 [(c _{K} )(1) ^{2} (c _{C}_{l} )(1) ^{2} (c _{H} )(1) ^{2} (c _{O}_{H} )(1) ^{2} ]
The hydrogen ion and the hydroxyl ion concentrations (estimated to be about 10 ^{}^{7} mole/L) are insigniﬁcant in this example. Thus,
I ^{1} ⁄ 2 [(0.1)(1) ^{2} (0.1)(1) ^{2} ] 0.1 mole/L
Using the computed I and the values from Tables 1050:IV and 1050:V for (900 pm), A(0.5092), and B(0.003286), the Debye Hu¨ckel equation yields
Since
log _{H}
(0.5092)(1) (0.1)
2
0.5
1 (0.003286)(900)(0.1) ^{0}^{.}^{5} ^{} ^{} ^{0}^{.}^{8}^{3}^{2}^{1}
_{H} 0.8256
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
5
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Units
TABLE 1050:V. VALUES OF A AND B FROM 0 TO 100°C FOR DEBYE H UCKEL EQUATION ^{1}^{2}
¨
A (Abs. Units) in Terms of Unit Volume of Solution 
B 
(cm ^{} ^{1} 10 ^{8} ) 
B 
(cm ^{} ^{1} 10 ^{8} ) 

A (Abs. Units) in Terms of Unit Weight of Solvent 
in 
Terms of Unit Volume of Solution 
in Terms of Unit Weight of Solvent 

Temperature 

°C 

0 
0.4883 
0.4883 
0.3241 
0.3241 

5 
0.4921 
0.4921 
0.3249 
0.3249 

10 
0.4961 
0.4960 
0.3258 
0.3258 

15 
0.5002 
0.5000 
0.3267 
0.3266 

18 
0.5028 
0.5025 
0.3273 
0.3271 

20 
0.5046 
0.5042 
0.3276 
0.3273 

25 
0.5092 
0.5085 
0.3286 
0.3281 

30 
0.5141 
0.5130 
0.3297 
0.3290 

35 
0.5190 
0.5175 
0.3307 
0.3297 

40 
0.5241 
0.5221 
0.3318 
0.3305 

45 
0.5296 
0.5270 
0.3330 
0.3314 

50 
0.5351 
0.5319 
0.3341 
0.3321 

55 
0.5410 
0.5371 
0.3353 
0.3329 

60 
0.5471 
0.5425 
0.3366 
0.3338 

65 
0.5534 
0.5480 
0.3379 
0.3346 

70 
0.5599 
0.5537 
0.3392 
0.3354 

75 
0.5668 
0.5596 
0.3406 
0.3363 

80 
0.5739 
0.5658 
0.3420 
0.3372 

85 
0.5814 
0.5722 
0.3434 
0.3380 

90 
0.5891 
0.5788 
0.3450 
0.3390 

95 
0.5972 
0.5857 
0.3466 
0.3399 

100 
0.6056 
0.5929 
0.3482 
0.3409 
S OURCE: M ANOV, G.C., R.G. B ATES, W.J. H AMER & S.F. A CRES. 1943. Values of the constants in the DebyeHu¨ckel equation for activity coefﬁcients. J. Amer. Chem. Soc.
65:1765s.
pH –log a _{H}
at the measured pH of 6.98,
a _{H} 10 ^{} ^{6}^{.}^{9}^{8} 1.047 10 ^{} ^{7} mole/L
Then,
c _{H} (a _{H} )/ ( _{H} )
c _{H} _{} 1.047 10 ^{} ^{7} /0.8256 1.268 10 ^{} ^{7} mole/L
Note that the hydrogen ion concentration is about 21% greater than was indicated by the hydrogen activity given by the pH electrode. The same type of computation can be made for determining the ionic concentration from the measured electrode activity for ﬂuoride, silver, and other substances. This is important if the true concentration of the ion is to be determined.
4. Stoichiometric Factors
Some analyses are reported as concentrations of other sub stances. Conversion factors to accomplish this are called stoi chiometric factors. Examples are: alkalinity or acidity reported as CaCO _{3} , total hardness as CaCO _{3} , magnesium hardness as CaCO _{3} , ammonia as nitrogen, nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, and phosphate as phosphorus. These stoichiometric factors provide for taking the analysis data in the form analyzed ﬁrst, dividing the mass concentration
by the analyte’s formula weight, and multiplying by the formula weight of the reported substance desired. For example,
mg/L chloride as NaCl ^{m}^{g} ^{C}^{l}
L
formula weight of sodium chloride
formula weight of chlorine
Be sure that the formula weights of the substance to be reported and of the analyte include the same number of atoms of the common element. Some analyses involve multiple reactions. For example, listed below are the reactions involved in the Winkler determination. ^{1}^{3}
2MnSO _{4} 4KOH 3 2Mn(OH) _{2} 2K _{2} SO _{4}
2 
Mn(OH) _{2} O _{2} 3 2MnO(OH) _{2} 
2 
MnO(OH) _{2} 4KI 4H _{2} SO _{4} 3 2I _{2} 2MnSO _{4} 2K _{2} SO _{4} 6H _{2} O 
2I _{2} 4Na _{2} S _{2} O _{3} 3 4NaI 2Na _{2} S _{4} O _{6}
In the last equation, one mole of sodium thiosulfate is equiv alent to one mole of elemental iodine. The number of moles of elemental iodine is equivalent to half the moles of manganese oxide hydroxide [MnO(OH) _{2} ] in the second and third equations. Then the number of moles of oxygen is half the number of moles of MnO(OH) _{2} , and thus the equivalent weight of elemental oxygen is onefourth that of elemental iodine or sodium thiosul fate (32 g/4 8g O _{2} /equivalent weight). This type of reasoning must be used to determine the analytical relationship between the titrant and the analyte being sought.
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
6
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Signiﬁcant Figures
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Signiﬁcant Figures
5. Molality
It is sometimes convenient to relate molality to molarity. That relationship is as follows: ^{1}^{4}
where:
M
M molarity, mole/L,
1000 m
(1000 W _{B} m )
density of solution, g/cm ^{3} ,
m molality, mole/kg, and
W _{B} molecular mass of solute, g.
The molality in terms of molarity is given as
m
1000M
1000 MW _{B}
Many electrochemical measurements are made in terms of molality rather than molarity.
6. References
1. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING & MATERIALS . 1993. Standard Prac
tice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Mod ernized Metric System); E38093. Philadelphia, Pa.
_{2}_{.} 
_{B} UREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MEASURES . 1991. The Interna 

tional System of Units (SI), 6th ed. Sevres, France. 

3. 
MILLS , I., T. CVITAS , K. HOMANN , N. KALLEY & K. KUCHITSU . 1993. Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, Oxford, U.K. 

4. 
MARSH , K.M., ed. 1987. Recommended Reference Materials for the Realization of Physicochemical Properties, Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, Oxford, U.K. 

5. 
C VITAS , T. & I. M ILLS . 1994. Replacing gram equivalents and normalities. Chem. Internat. 16:123. 

6. 
AYRES , G.H. 1958. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, N.Y. 

7. 
KENNER , C.T. & K.W. BUSCH . 1979. Quantitative Analysis. Harper 

& 
Row Publishers, New York, N.Y. 

8. 
F REISER , H. & G.H. NANCOLLAS . 1987. Compendium of Analytical 

Nomenclature, Deﬁnitive Rules 1987. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Pub 

lications, London, U.K. 

9. 
G OLD , V., K.L. LOENING , A.D. MC NAUGHT & P. SEHMI . 1987. Com pendium of Chemical Technology IUPAC Recommendations. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, Oxford, U.K. 

10. 
HARRIS , D.C. 1982. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. W.H. Freeman 

& 
Co., New York, N.Y. 

11. 
SKOOG , D.A. & D.M. WEST . 1976. Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, 3rd ed. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, N.Y. 

12. 
M ANOV , G.C., R.G. B ATES , W.J. H AMER & S.F. A CRES . 1943. Values of the constants in the DebyeHu¨ckel equation for activity coefﬁ cients. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 65:1765. 

13. 
HACH COMPANY . 1984. Chemical Procedures Explained. Loveland, Colo. 

14. 
WEAST , R.C. & D.R. LIDE . 1989. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 70th ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla. 
1050 B. Signiﬁcant Figures
1. Reporting Requirements
To avoid ambiguity in reporting results or in presenting direc tions for a procedure, it is customary to use “signiﬁcant ﬁgures.” All digits in a reported result are expected to be known deﬁ nitely, except for the last digit, which may be in doubt. Such a number is said to contain only signiﬁcant ﬁgures. If more than a single doubtful digit is reported, the extra digit or digits are not signiﬁcant. This is an important distinction. Extra digits should be carried in calculation (see 1050B.2). If an analytical result is re ported as “75.6 mg/L,” the analyst should be quite certain of the “75,” but may be uncertain as to whether the “.6” should be .5 or .7, or even .4 or .8, because of unavoidable uncertainty in the analytical procedure. If the standard deviation were known from previous work to be 2 mg/L , the analyst would have, or should have, rounded off the result to “76 mg/L” before reporting it. On the other hand, if the method was so good that a result of “75.64 mg/L” could have been conscientiously reported, then the analyst should not have rounded it off to 75.6 mg/L. Report only such ﬁgures as are justiﬁed by the accuracy of the work. Do not follow the common practice of requiring that quantities listed in a column have the same number of ﬁgures to the right of the decimal point.
2. Rounding Off
Round off by dropping digits that are not signiﬁcant. If the digit 6, 7, 8, or 9 is dropped, increase preceding digit by one unit; if the digit 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 is dropped, do not alter preceding digit. If the digit 5 is dropped, round off preceding digit to the nearest even number: thus 2.25 becomes 2.2 and 2.35 becomes 2.4. When making calculations, perform all computations before rounding off results. Repeated rounding off can result in chang ing the value of a reported result. For example, taking the measured value of 77.46 and rounding off to three signiﬁcant ﬁgures yields 77.5. If the latter number were rounded a second time to two signiﬁcant ﬁgures, the result would be 78. This is clearly a different result from a rounding of the original value of 77.46 to two signiﬁcant ﬁgures (77).
3. Ambiguous Zeros
The digit 0 may record a measured value of zero or it may serve merely as a spacer to locate the decimal point. If the result of a sulfate determination is reported as 420 mg/L, the report recipient may be in doubt whether the zero is signiﬁ cant or not, because the zero cannot be deleted. If an analyst calculates a total residue of 1146 mg/L, but realizes that the
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
7
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Signiﬁcant Figures
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Signiﬁcant Figures
4 is somewhat doubtful and that therefore the 6 has no signiﬁcance, the answer should be rounded off to 1150 mg/L and so reported but here, too, the report recipient will not know whether the zero is signiﬁcant. Although the number could be expressed as a power of 10 (e.g., 11.5 10 ^{2} or 1.15 10 ^{3} ), this form is not used generally because it would not be consistent with the normal expression of results and might be confusing. In most other cases, there will be no
doubt as to the sense in which the digit 0 is used. It is obvious that the zeros are signiﬁcant in such numbers as 104 and 40.08. In a number written as 5.000, it is understood that all the zeros are signiﬁcant, or else the number could have been rounded off to 5.00, 5.0, or 5, whichever was appropriate. Whenever zero is ambiguous, it is advisable to accompany the result with an estimate of its uncertainty. Sometimes, signiﬁcant zeros are dropped without good cause.
If 
a buret is read as “23.60 mL,” it should be so recorded, and not 
as 
“23.6 mL.” The ﬁrst number indicates that the analyst took the 
trouble to estimate the second decimal place; “23.6 mL” would indicate an imprecise reading of the buret.
4. Standard Deviation
Suppose that a set of potential results is normally distributed
with a standard deviation of 100 mg/L and that a calculated value turns out to be 1450 mg/L. Then that 1450 is the best estimate available of this particular value, and from a Bayesian point of view, there would only be about a 31% chance that the true value was 1400 or lower or that the true value was 1500 or higher. It does not make sense to round the 1450 value to 1400. The arbitrary subtracting of half a standard deviation leaves us with
a value that does not represent our best estimate well. The
standard deviation should inﬂuence the last signiﬁcant ﬁgures of
a calculation only by 0.5 ^{1} and if more, the number of signif icant ﬁgures cannot be justiﬁed. When reporting numbers in the form x y , always state whether y represents standard deviation, standard error, conﬁ dence limit, or an estimate of maximum bias. Standard devia tions and standard errors often should be reported with extra digits (compared with single measurements) because they are calculated from variances and because they are square roots (see 1050B.5). When interpreting a quantity such as 1480 40, be aware that this notation seldom indicates a belief that the true value lies anywhere in the range from 1440 to 1520 with equal probability; instead, the probability is concentrated near the central value (1480).
5. Calculations
As a starting point, round off the results of any calculation in which several numbers are multiplied and divided to as few signiﬁcant ﬁgures as are present in the factor with the fewest signiﬁcant ﬁgures. ^{2} However, several potential reasons to mod ify that guideline are noted below. Example: Assume that the following calculation must be made
to obtain the results of an analysis:
56 0.003 462 43.22
1.684
A tenplace calculator yields an answer of “4.975 740 998.” If the number 56 is an exact number (a count or a mathematical constant, such as ), it has no error associated with it and is considered to have unlimited signiﬁcant ﬁgures. In that case, round off the result of the calculation to “4.976” because other numbers have only four signiﬁcant ﬁgures. However, if 56 is an approximate measurement with uncertainly associated beyond the second ﬁgure, round off the result to “5.0” because 56 has only two signiﬁcant ﬁgures. When numbers are added or subtracted, the number that has the least precision in its last signiﬁcant digit limits the number of places that can justiﬁably be carried in the sum or difference. It is acceptable practice to carry one more digit beyond the least precise signiﬁcant digit. Example:
The following numbers are to be added:
0.0072
12.02
4.0078
25.9
4886
The number “4886” is the least precise number (decimal place). Round each number in the sum to one or more digits beyond the least precise number and compute the sum.
0.0
12.0
4.0
25.9
4886.
4927.9
Round the result to the precision of the least precise number in the sum, 4928. Some calculators or computers round off numbers by a different rule that tends to bias results toward the larger digit in the last signiﬁcant ﬁgure. Before using such a device, determine which
rounding techniques are programmed and if an incorrect rounding method is being used, reprogram to follow the correct rounding method. If it is not possible to reprogram, take unrounded number and manually round off using the correct scientiﬁc roundoff method. Interpret the foregoing guidelines ﬂexibly. For example, consider
a series of measurements (u, v, and w) and a derived variable (y uv/w) that is calculated for each case. Suppose measurements give y 9.90972 and y 10.11389 for two cases with similar measured values. According to the guidelines, the ﬁrst y should be rounded to 9.91; the ﬁnal digit here is about 0.1% of the overall result. For comparable precision, round the y value for the second case to 10.11 (not 10.1) because the fourth digit is also about 0.1% of the number. To generalize, more signiﬁcant digits should at times be provided for quantities having 1, 2, or 3 (say) as leading digits than for quantities beginning with 7, 8, or 9. Flexibility is also needed for the average of several numbers. The standard deviation (standard error) of a mean of N numbers
is only 1/ N as large as the standard deviation of the individual
numbers. Thus a mean of 100 numbers like d.dd is known to a precision of d.ddd. Even if fewer values than 100 are averaged, showing an extra digit may be justiﬁable. Because variances are
averages of squared deviations, they too are more precise than
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.008
8
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Other Considerations
EXPRESSION OF RESULTS (1050)/Other Considerations
individual deviations. Therefore, reporting variances with an extra digit or two is often justiﬁable. These guidelines refer only to ﬁnal reported values. When per forming any series of mathematical or statistical calculations, do not round measurements or other numbers until the very end of the analysis. Keep two or three extra digits for all intermediate calcu lations, to reduce roundoff errors, which can be substantial.
6. General Arithmetic Functions
In analytical calculations, it may be necessary to use functions other than simple arithmetic, such as logarithmic, exponential, or
trigonometric functions. A detailed treatment of signiﬁcant ﬁg ures in such cases is available. ^{3}
7. References
1. SCARBOROUGH , J.B. 1955. Numerical Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md.
2. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS . 1993. Standard Prac
tice for Using Signiﬁcant Digits for Test Data to Determine Confor mance with Speciﬁcations; E2993. Philadelphia, Pa.
3. GRAHAM , D.M. 1989. Signiﬁcant ﬁgure rules for general arithmetic functions. J. Chem. Ed. 66:573.
1050 C. Other Cons
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.