Ryfujk

How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?

Unable to start mainnet node docker container

How can you insert a "times/divide" symbol similar to the "plus/minus" (±) one?

Simulating Exploding Dice

How many things? AとBがふたつ

Classification of bundles, Postnikov towers, obstruction theory, local coefficients

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Using "nakedly" instead of "with nothing on"

Unexpected result with right shift after bitwise negation

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

Why is there no army of Iron-Mans in the MCU?

How to rotate it perfectly?

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

What do I do if technical issues prevent me from filing my return on time?

3 doors, three guards, one stone

What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails?

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?

Cold is to Refrigerator as warm is to?

Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?

What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition?

Active filter with series inductor and resistor - do these exist?

Can I add database to AWS RDS MySQL without creating new instance?

Passing functions in C++

What is the electric potential inside a point charge?

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?

3

$begingroup$

In an article I recently submitted, a reviewer asked that I provide a concentration in μg/kg instead of ppb (parts per billion), and mentions that the later is not correct. I am not a chemist, and I thought that 1 μg/kg = 1 ppb.

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg ? What is a reason to consider ppb as incorrect ?

concentration notation units

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

In an article I recently submitted, a reviewer asked that I provide a concentration in μg/kg instead of ppb (parts per billion), and mentions that the later is not correct. I am not a chemist, and I thought that 1 μg/kg = 1 ppb.

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg ? What is a reason to consider ppb as incorrect ?

concentration notation units

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

In an article I recently submitted, a reviewer asked that I provide a concentration in μg/kg instead of ppb (parts per billion), and mentions that the later is not correct. I am not a chemist, and I thought that 1 μg/kg = 1 ppb.

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg ? What is a reason to consider ppb as incorrect ?

concentration notation units

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

edited 2 hours ago

andselisk

19.2k662125

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

New contributor

Nakx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 3 hours ago

NakxNakx

1184

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

$begingroup$

You are correct suggesting that 1 μg/kg implies 1 ppb, however the reverse is not true. For instance, 1 ppb can also be 1 nmol/mol, and the reader will never have a chance to deduce which one is it unless you explicitly define the usage of the "parts per something" in the text.
This clutters the manuscript with redundant notes and causes overall confusion.

IUPAC also lists all similar symbols (ppm, ppt, ppb etc.) as deprecated; from IUPAC's “Green Book” [1, p. 98]:

Although ppm, ppb, ppt and alike are widely used in various applications of
analytical and environmental chemistry, it is suggested to abandon completely their use because of the ambiguities involved. These units are unnecessary and can be easily replaced by SI-compatible quantities such as pmol/mol (picomole per mole), which are unambiguous. The last column contains suggested replacements (similar replacements can be formulated as mg/g, μg/g, pg/g etc.).

$$
begin{array}{lllll}
hline
text{Name} & text{Symbol} & text{Value} & text{Examples} & text{Replacement} \
hline
ldots & & & & \
text{part per billion} & text{ppb} & 10^{-9} & text{The air quality standard for ozone is a} & pu{mmol/mol} \
& & & text{volume fraction of}~varphi = 120~text{ppb} & \
ldots & & & & \
hline
end{array}
$$

References

1. IUPAC “Green Book” Quantities, Units, and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Cohen, R. E., Mills, I., Eds.; IUPAC Recommendations; RSC Pub: Cambridge, UK, 2007. (PDF)

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

Nakx is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112760%2fis-1-ppb-equal-to-1-%25ce%25bcg-kg%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

$begingroup$

You are correct suggesting that 1 μg/kg implies 1 ppb, however the reverse is not true. For instance, 1 ppb can also be 1 nmol/mol, and the reader will never have a chance to deduce which one is it unless you explicitly define the usage of the "parts per something" in the text.
This clutters the manuscript with redundant notes and causes overall confusion.

IUPAC also lists all similar symbols (ppm, ppt, ppb etc.) as deprecated; from IUPAC's “Green Book” [1, p. 98]:

Although ppm, ppb, ppt and alike are widely used in various applications of
analytical and environmental chemistry, it is suggested to abandon completely their use because of the ambiguities involved. These units are unnecessary and can be easily replaced by SI-compatible quantities such as pmol/mol (picomole per mole), which are unambiguous. The last column contains suggested replacements (similar replacements can be formulated as mg/g, μg/g, pg/g etc.).

$$
begin{array}{lllll}
hline
text{Name} & text{Symbol} & text{Value} & text{Examples} & text{Replacement} \
hline
ldots & & & & \
text{part per billion} & text{ppb} & 10^{-9} & text{The air quality standard for ozone is a} & pu{mmol/mol} \
& & & text{volume fraction of}~varphi = 120~text{ppb} & \
ldots & & & & \
hline
end{array}
$$

References

1. IUPAC “Green Book” Quantities, Units, and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Cohen, R. E., Mills, I., Eds.; IUPAC Recommendations; RSC Pub: Cambridge, UK, 2007. (PDF)

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

You are correct suggesting that 1 μg/kg implies 1 ppb, however the reverse is not true. For instance, 1 ppb can also be 1 nmol/mol, and the reader will never have a chance to deduce which one is it unless you explicitly define the usage of the "parts per something" in the text.
This clutters the manuscript with redundant notes and causes overall confusion.

IUPAC also lists all similar symbols (ppm, ppt, ppb etc.) as deprecated; from IUPAC's “Green Book” [1, p. 98]:

Although ppm, ppb, ppt and alike are widely used in various applications of
analytical and environmental chemistry, it is suggested to abandon completely their use because of the ambiguities involved. These units are unnecessary and can be easily replaced by SI-compatible quantities such as pmol/mol (picomole per mole), which are unambiguous. The last column contains suggested replacements (similar replacements can be formulated as mg/g, μg/g, pg/g etc.).

$$
begin{array}{lllll}
hline
text{Name} & text{Symbol} & text{Value} & text{Examples} & text{Replacement} \
hline
ldots & & & & \
text{part per billion} & text{ppb} & 10^{-9} & text{The air quality standard for ozone is a} & pu{mmol/mol} \
& & & text{volume fraction of}~varphi = 120~text{ppb} & \
ldots & & & & \
hline
end{array}
$$

References

1. IUPAC “Green Book” Quantities, Units, and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Cohen, R. E., Mills, I., Eds.; IUPAC Recommendations; RSC Pub: Cambridge, UK, 2007. (PDF)

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

You are correct suggesting that 1 μg/kg implies 1 ppb, however the reverse is not true. For instance, 1 ppb can also be 1 nmol/mol, and the reader will never have a chance to deduce which one is it unless you explicitly define the usage of the "parts per something" in the text.
This clutters the manuscript with redundant notes and causes overall confusion.

IUPAC also lists all similar symbols (ppm, ppt, ppb etc.) as deprecated; from IUPAC's “Green Book” [1, p. 98]:

Although ppm, ppb, ppt and alike are widely used in various applications of
analytical and environmental chemistry, it is suggested to abandon completely their use because of the ambiguities involved. These units are unnecessary and can be easily replaced by SI-compatible quantities such as pmol/mol (picomole per mole), which are unambiguous. The last column contains suggested replacements (similar replacements can be formulated as mg/g, μg/g, pg/g etc.).

$$
begin{array}{lllll}
hline
text{Name} & text{Symbol} & text{Value} & text{Examples} & text{Replacement} \
hline
ldots & & & & \
text{part per billion} & text{ppb} & 10^{-9} & text{The air quality standard for ozone is a} & pu{mmol/mol} \
& & & text{volume fraction of}~varphi = 120~text{ppb} & \
ldots & & & & \
hline
end{array}
$$

References

1. IUPAC “Green Book” Quantities, Units, and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Cohen, R. E., Mills, I., Eds.; IUPAC Recommendations; RSC Pub: Cambridge, UK, 2007. (PDF)

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125

answered 2 hours ago

andseliskandselisk

19.2k662125