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

RE: Lab Readings in ug/L vs ppb



These assumptions generally work at the low concentrations that are usually expressed as ppm & ppb.  Even considering the density of, say, lead, 400 ppm = 400 mg/l close enough.  For higher concentrations, to be accurate one would have to consider molecular weight considerations.
 
At 1 ug/l of TCE, without doing the calcs I expect there would be a difference if you needed to know if it was 1.00010 ppb or 1.00015.  Which is not usually the case.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Calcagni [mailto:John_Calcagni@p2pays.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:12 PM
To: 'Donald Sutherland'; P2Tech Listservice
Subject: RE: Lab Readings in ug/L vs ppb

One is mass to volume the other is volume to volume
1ug/liter = 1ppb is approximately accurate assuming the material has the same density as water and you are at standard conditions.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Sutherland [mailto:donaldsutherland-iso14000@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:45 PM
To: P2Tech Listservice
Subject: Lab Readings in ug/L vs ppb

Can someone tell me how these lab testing results translate into parts per billion (ppb)?
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Cheers,
Donald Sutherland
 
Eastern Range Detected Average
 2001 ND-1.45 ug/L 0.47 ug/L
 
Western 
2001 ND-1.56 ug/L 0.64 ug/L
 
Southern 
2001 ND-2.38 ug/L 0.94 ug/L