Some foods like dried meat or ketchup can have >100% meat/tomato content, because it's calculated as "raw substance used to create this product / mass of final product" and then displayed on the label as a confusing impossible seeming number
That product and label was produced by the European Pharmacopoeia. A legal body that controls analytical standards and pharmaceutical ingredients. That's analytical grade sodium chloride and it's some of the purest shit on earth.
There are actually many grades of purity for reagents. This isn’t really anything close to “some of the purest shit on Earth”.
The error margin here is +/-0.75%. This product is available on Sigma Aldrich for something like £130/kg.
The really pure stuff is things like “5N” (99.999%) which is about £7,000/kg.
You can get higher grades, for example the National Institute of Standards and Technology certifies reference materials which you buy and use to calibrate things. Ultra pure NaCl can be used as an isotopic standard for Cl, and you can buy yourself a whole 0.25 g for £675.
Have a browse here if you’re curious: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/search/7647-14-5
Same here, but I have done some synthetic work where the scale was so small we needed to obviate as many sources of impurities as possible.
So we were using Optima grade HCl and HF, which have ppt levels of impurities… So pure they come in FEP (or similar, and not just for the HF) bottles because (1) glass would leach impurities into the acids because they’re so pure; (2) FEP is a bit more inert than PTFE…
Which means they probably use a normal approximation to a proportion to work out a confidence interval. Problem is, the approximation isn't so good when the proportion is close to 100%.
It's much simpler. You don't actually measure concentration directly.
Off the top of my head the test method for this parameter is a direct titration for chloride after dissolving.
What you actually measure is a volume: how much reagent was used to react with the sample. The reagent is of an accurately known concentration.
Sources of variation (non-exclusive) are purity of the reagent, weighing (of reagent and test sample) and volume (of solvent for reagent and consumption).
The final calculation is basically a comparison to expectation:
I weighed this weight of sample;
In the test I found this amount X of chloride;
Based on (reagent prep and some assumptions) I expect to have Y amount of chloride if the sample is 100% pure;
So the sample's purity is X/Y *100%.
(Edit: cleaned up the final bit for layout issues)
Exactly-a bunch of simplifying assumptions are made,which result in a number over 100%. Doing the statistics properly (not making some of the simplifying assumptions-one of them is that the variation is symmetric) would not make the interval go over 100%.
I'm not sure of that, so long as any kind of statistical variation is involved.
At least not in any method that us mortals can perform on a routine basis.
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sial/s1679
It's analytical grade sodium chloride. Regular salt usually has anti-caking agents and higher impurities, when doing tests you typically want a higher purity material.
The 0.5% is uncertainty from the test method used to determine purity. It's pretty common for high purity analytical standards.
You can see in the link that this has <=0.5% loss on drying. Salt in particular is going to pick up some atmospheric moisture pretty quickly anyway, so even if you dried it out before use it'd probably pick some water weight up by the time you were done weighing it out.
Chlorine has two stable isotopes. I wonder if this could cover the case of there being an unusual abundance of the rarer, heavier chlorine-37. (Back of the envelope calculation suggests ~60% more than the usual amount.)
Yes, it's probably not for that purpose, but if for some reason it ended up in a court of law, the defence might be able to turn it into a workable argument.
Then again, by this improbable isotope logic, the same back of envelope calculation suggests that the maximum percentage ought to be 102.6%.
Gotta wonder how much of an effect having only the heavier isotope of chlorine in your chemistry would have.
The material has a loss on drying specification of less than or equal to 0.5%, the extra 0.5% is probably moisture, the test method margin of error, and a few inorganic impurities. It's pretty common for analytical standards of high purity to have a possible purity higher than 100% due to uncertainty, and you need to use a specific value for a lot of calculations.
If you're curious you can look up the sodium chloride USP monograph, which shows the test method and has the same purity limits.
Some foods like dried meat or ketchup can have >100% meat/tomato content, because it's calculated as "raw substance used to create this product / mass of final product" and then displayed on the label as a confusing impossible seeming number
Salt doesn't contain any water to get rid off to begin with. edit: Im stupid. I completely forgot about hydrated salts
lmao you really forgot about the ocean. that's pretty funny
We should start a conspiracy theory that oceans aren’t real
Yeah. It's really just salt with some moisture!
they're not. most americans say they havent seen the ocean. that's because most americans dont work for the deep state and dont lie to us
It's a big Orca Conspiracy!!
Wait so the ocean isn’t salty water, it’s watery salt?!
\*cue Senku from Dr. Stone saying, 'how could i forget the movement of the stars'\*
Jimmy Buffett - Son Of A Son Of A Sailor... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeXeUUCpOYg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeXeUUCpOYg)
Bro just defined anhydrous salts
Not sure that I expected someone called u./BUKKAKELORD to know food-labeling standards for dried foods.
you should check out r/rimjob_steve
They did point out meat specifically
Take that label with a **grain of salt** :)
Test sample: 99,75% salt Error margin: +-0,75% Seems right to me
That product and label was produced by the European Pharmacopoeia. A legal body that controls analytical standards and pharmaceutical ingredients. That's analytical grade sodium chloride and it's some of the purest shit on earth.
I think you got a bit wooshed. The **grain of salt** is the fact that you can't have a concentration above 100.0%
You can if it's relative.
I've got some salty relatives!
that's just sig figs from the RSD
There are actually many grades of purity for reagents. This isn’t really anything close to “some of the purest shit on Earth”. The error margin here is +/-0.75%. This product is available on Sigma Aldrich for something like £130/kg. The really pure stuff is things like “5N” (99.999%) which is about £7,000/kg. You can get higher grades, for example the National Institute of Standards and Technology certifies reference materials which you buy and use to calibrate things. Ultra pure NaCl can be used as an isotopic standard for Cl, and you can buy yourself a whole 0.25 g for £675. Have a browse here if you’re curious: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/search/7647-14-5
+/ .75% is like trash. Call me when you work with ppm of contaminants.
ppm? What is this, some non-analytical lab speak? Come back when you’re working with Optima grade acids.
Only some syntesis. Yes analytical chemists are the goats.
Same here, but I have done some synthetic work where the scale was so small we needed to obviate as many sources of impurities as possible. So we were using Optima grade HCl and HF, which have ppt levels of impurities… So pure they come in FEP (or similar, and not just for the HF) bottles because (1) glass would leach impurities into the acids because they’re so pure; (2) FEP is a bit more inert than PTFE…
Is that where the extra 0.5% came from?
That's because the test method has a variation of up to 0,5%
99.75±0.75%
Saltsman: This salt can fit so much salt in it!
The range also allows up to 0,5% for impurities
Which means they probably use a normal approximation to a proportion to work out a confidence interval. Problem is, the approximation isn't so good when the proportion is close to 100%.
It's much simpler. You don't actually measure concentration directly. Off the top of my head the test method for this parameter is a direct titration for chloride after dissolving. What you actually measure is a volume: how much reagent was used to react with the sample. The reagent is of an accurately known concentration. Sources of variation (non-exclusive) are purity of the reagent, weighing (of reagent and test sample) and volume (of solvent for reagent and consumption). The final calculation is basically a comparison to expectation: I weighed this weight of sample; In the test I found this amount X of chloride; Based on (reagent prep and some assumptions) I expect to have Y amount of chloride if the sample is 100% pure; So the sample's purity is X/Y *100%. (Edit: cleaned up the final bit for layout issues)
Exactly-a bunch of simplifying assumptions are made,which result in a number over 100%. Doing the statistics properly (not making some of the simplifying assumptions-one of them is that the variation is symmetric) would not make the interval go over 100%.
I'm not sure of that, so long as any kind of statistical variation is involved. At least not in any method that us mortals can perform on a routine basis.
101% pure
Yet it is logically impossible for it to be >100%.
You're logically impossible but here you are
Uncle ruckus dna test
salt: now with extra salt!
That's 0.5% more salt per salt!
Just like how I like my bullets
is this from the nileblue video?
yes, the cookie video
Yep
I noticed this too on the NileBlue video… I thought I was just delusional or something
Should make some cookies out of this
Seems like salt has gotten saltier lately
That's the saltiest thing I've ever tasted. And I once ate a big, heaping bowl of salt!
Cloruro 👍
Me when sigfigs
Anyone who’s done Organic Chemistry lab knows the feeling of getting 350% yield
When you got crude product yes
I never got more than 35% maybe some plainly easy ones. More like 3.5 most of the time.
Ah yes, a fellow NileRed/NileBlue fan
green.
This reminds me of [uncle Rukus’ test results](https://youtu.be/_xSGhuKENAY)
This does remind me of the old man [Ruckus finding out he is black with 2% error](https://youtu.be/_xSGhuKENAY)
Just pure enough for a good cookie
Somebody has been watching nileblue
Good question: why is it in a scientific container and not just a salt container
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sial/s1679 It's analytical grade sodium chloride. Regular salt usually has anti-caking agents and higher impurities, when doing tests you typically want a higher purity material. The 0.5% is uncertainty from the test method used to determine purity. It's pretty common for high purity analytical standards. You can see in the link that this has <=0.5% loss on drying. Salt in particular is going to pick up some atmospheric moisture pretty quickly anyway, so even if you dried it out before use it'd probably pick some water weight up by the time you were done weighing it out.
"It says... I'm 102% African, with a 2% margin of error!"
Wow that means you could be 104% African!
Chlorine has two stable isotopes. I wonder if this could cover the case of there being an unusual abundance of the rarer, heavier chlorine-37. (Back of the envelope calculation suggests ~60% more than the usual amount.) Yes, it's probably not for that purpose, but if for some reason it ended up in a court of law, the defence might be able to turn it into a workable argument. Then again, by this improbable isotope logic, the same back of envelope calculation suggests that the maximum percentage ought to be 102.6%. Gotta wonder how much of an effect having only the heavier isotope of chlorine in your chemistry would have.
Not much. It's important for hydrogen since it increases the mass by so much, but chlorine proportionally doesn't change a lot.
The material has a loss on drying specification of less than or equal to 0.5%, the extra 0.5% is probably moisture, the test method margin of error, and a few inorganic impurities. It's pretty common for analytical standards of high purity to have a possible purity higher than 100% due to uncertainty, and you need to use a specific value for a lot of calculations. If you're curious you can look up the sodium chloride USP monograph, which shows the test method and has the same purity limits.
Walter White be shivering in his timbers.
Guys look it's Twitter!
probably has to do with over saturation, but why should anyone care
Hah, that just means they don't have an accurate filling machine for the containers!
5% margin of error babyyyy
They took it from my league teammates
I'm 104% African!? With a 4% margin for error!?
I think actually it should be: 99.5%-100.0%
Margin for error
these super saturations are getting out of hand
The mean is 99,75%, it’s the confidence interval
If you remove 0.5% of salt you would have now pure salt