Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Earth Science / Oceanography / January 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

salinity unit

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Roland Ferer - 27 Jan 2004 15:31 GMT
The unit for salinity is commonly g.l-1, but to be right, how we must write :

ie: 35 °/°° or 0.0035kg.kg-1 or 35 g.l-1 or 35 ?

Thank you for your help

Roland F.
Signature

Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/

Robert Grumbine - 28 Jan 2004 14:40 GMT
>The unit for salinity is commonly g.l-1, but to be right, how we must write :
>
>ie: 35 °/°° or 0.0035kg.kg-1 or 35 g.l-1 or 35 ?

 35 psu

 The practical salinity unit was adopted in the ?early 1980's as
the official unit.  It is pretty much the part per thousand or
g/kg people were used to.  But for high precision work, the differences
are meaningful.

Signature

Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

rc - 29 Jan 2004 18:25 GMT
> >The unit for salinity is commonly g.l-1, but to be right, how we must write :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> g/kg people were used to.  But for high precision work, the differences
> are meaningful.

Can you please give any published reference which discusses the
equivalence/difference between ppt vs PSU?

RC
rc - 29 Jan 2004 18:27 GMT
> >The unit for salinity is commonly g.l-1, but to be right, how we must write :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> g/kg people were used to.  But for high precision work, the differences
> are meaningful.

Can you please give any published reference which discusses the
equivalence/difference between ppt vs PSU?

RC
Bernd Kassler - 30 Jan 2004 16:09 GMT

> Can you please give any published reference which discusses the
> equivalence/difference between ppt vs PSU?

There is no equivalence.

Salinity S is *defined* - according to IAPSO - by a fifth order polominal:

imagine k = sqrt(K15)

S := a0 + a1*k^1 + a2*k^2 + a3*k^3 + a4*k^4 + a5*k^5

Where K15 is the ratio of the *CONDUCTIVITY* of seawater and a very
precisely defined KCL solution at 15 degrees Temperature und a Normal
pressure of 1013 HPa.

The ai (0 < i < 5)have been found by very precise analyses of the
conductivity sea water.

This IAPSO definietion is only valid for the range 2 < S < 42.  

The International Units for oceanography are defined and fixed in
UNESCO Technical Paper of Marine Sciences No 45 whereas a description of the
underlying backgrouns can be found in UNESCO Technical Paper of Marine
Sciences No 37.

A value of "ppt" or "promille" thus makes absolutely no sense at all.

Bernd

Signature

http://www.kassler.de

Robert Grumbine - 30 Jan 2004 18:58 GMT
>> >The unit for salinity is commonly g.l-1, but to be right, how we must write :
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Can you please give any published reference which discusses the
>equivalence/difference between ppt vs PSU?

 Turns out that I got that wrong.  An emailed correction, with the
important citation, is below.

>The salinity (at last in oceanography) is defined by the Practical
>Salinity Scale PSS78
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>2 < S < 42

 In a sense, salinity, now, has no correspondance to the old
parts per thousand or anything else.  The salinity is defined
as function of conductivity.  This is somewhat like the speed
of light, which is now defined to be exactly 2.99whatever m/s.

 Also analogous is the fact that the new values (though
not definition) correspond pretty well to the old values.  
The new one is built on a foundation of conductivity, which
is easy to measure, and can be measured accurately easily.
The old approach was based on a chemical approach (mass of
non-water).  The differences in answer that you would get
between the two methods mostly depend on variation in
chemical composition of sea water, which is known to be
small.

 But for the real details, see the UNESCO report.

Signature

Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.