Search

In recent years, the definition of mole, the unit of the amount of substance, has changed to have the base units of the International System defined by "explicit-constant" formulations. The old definition, by referring explicitly to both mass and elementary units, suggests that the mole is a bridge between the macroscopic and microscopic registers. Conversely, the new definition emphasizes the aspect of counting, referred to any kind of elementary unit. Paradoxically, this results in the disappearance of the notion of substance from the very unit of the quantity amount of substance. This change of definition elicited both positive and negative remarks from various authors, in relation to its epistemological, disciplinary, lexical and educational implications. In the present paper, we analyze some of these issues, highlighting the (conflicting) motivations of metrologists and chemists. We argue that the new definition of mole reflects a view of chemistry according to which the microscopic perspective prevails, possibly entailing the loss of reference to the macroscopic register; this could be related with the profound change undergone by the cognitive practices of chemistry along this last century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most challenging problems in the field of chemico- and bioanalytical measurements are described. These problems are being solved, in particular, by participating in new international comparisons organized by the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance: Metrology in Chemistry and Biology of the International Committee of Weights and Measures (CCQM CIPM). Solutions of these challenging problems are presented. The objectives and tasks of developing key comparisons in the following areas are described: isotopic measurements; determination of the purity of substances; organic analysis; bioanalytical measurements; measurements of aerosol particle parameters; measurements in the field of gas analysis and electrochemistry. It is shown that participation in international key comparisons allows obtaining valid and reliable results of measurements of the composition and properties of gas and liquid media, as well as solid substances and materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This note proposes that the theories of field evaporation and field desorption, as used in atom-probe microscopy and related atomic-level contexts, should be consistently formulated in terms of a set of "seven-dimensional (7-D)" formulae and equations that involve the physical quantity "amount of substance", but make use of an atomic-level constant effectively equal to "one atom" (or, more generally, "one entity"). It is argued that the term "count" should be introduced as an alternative name (more suited to atomic-level contexts) for the quantity "amount of substance". For field evaporation/desorption theories, relevant definitions and formulae are proposed, and compared with the "six-dimensional" system (based on the dimensionless quantity "number of atoms/entities") sometimes used in the literature. Advantages of using a 7-D system are noted. It is argued that there is also an increasing need for a comprehensive system of official nomenclature for atomic-level constants and units, for all three of the extensive quantities "mass", "electric charge" and "amount of substance". It is also argued that, in the longer term, considerations of the kind being proposed here for field evaporation/desorption theories might usefully be applied more generally in atomic-level rate theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2019 revision of the International System of Units (SI), including the redefinition of the mole, and the progress of analytical chemistry technologies allowing single-molecule resolution has brought into sharp focus the dilemma between expressing measurements of ultra-low quantities of elementary entities in terms of amount of substance or in terms of counting quantities. We should prefer the use of amount of substance for these measurements for a number of reasons including to allow intensive and extensive quantities in chemistry to be distinguished and to separate these measurements from those involving the counting of non-elementary entities. The discussion article highlights how a new, non-decimal approach to unit prefixes might in future enable amount of substance to be used usefully down to its natural limit—a single elementary entity. A new prefix symbol 'σ' is proposed to represent the multiplier 1/{NA}. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The base quantity 'amount of substance' is poorly understood and the name and symbol usually avoided. This is because of its formal interpretation as the number of entities multiplied by the reciprocal of the mysterious Avogadro constant, N . If X signifies the kind of entities involved, the number of entities in a sample, N(X), is easily comprehended, and if m (X) is the sample-average entity mass, the total mass, m(X) = N(X) m (X)-an aggregate of N(X) average entity masses-is also conceptually straightforward. However, the corresponding amount of substance, n(X) = N(X)(1/ N )-an aggregate of N(X) 'reciprocal Avogadro constants'-is incomprehensible unless some physical meaning can be attached to 1/ N . By contrast, the base unit, mole, is thought of by chemists as an aggregate of a particular number of entities: mol = $$ {\mathcal N}_{\rm{Avo}} $$ ent, where $$ {\mathcal N}_{\rm{Avo}} $$ is the Avogadro number (equal to g/Da) and ent represents one entity. It makes sense, therefore, to interpret amount of substance as an aggregate of a general number of entities: n(X) = N(X) ent-an easily grasped concept. A 'reciprocal Avogadro constant' is thus seen to actually be exactly one entity. One mole then corresponds to setting N(X) = $$ {\mathcal N}_{\rm{Avo}} $$ , for which the total mass is the relative entity mass in grams-conforming to the original mole concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent results of measurements of the Avogadro constant by the method of crystal silicon spheres in connection with the planned transition to a new definition of the basic SI unit, the mole, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Just as the gram is an Avogadro number of daltons, g = (g/Da) Da, the current definition of the mole can be interpreted as an Avogadro number of entities, as it is often thought of by chemists-and it should be explicitly redefined this way. By introducing a hitherto missing atomic-scale unit for the amount of any substance, the entity (symbol ent), analogous to the dalton for mass, we can then define the mole as: mol = (g/Da) ent-i.e., an Avogadro number of entities. It is argued that the name for the base quantity should be 'chemical amount,' by analogy with 'electric current.' Recent proposals and counterproposals for redefining the mole (and renaming 'amount of substance') are critically discussed in light of the above intuitively obvious definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mole is a difficult concept. Surveys have shown that even many teachers do not have a proper understanding of it. To help to meet this problem, the SI/IUPAC formulation of the mole is carefully presented and explained. New SI proposals are also briefly discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most base units in the SI relate to specific sensoric qualities our body is able to observe: space, heat, brightness, etc. The base unit 'mole' incorporates intellectual insight: the atomistic perception of the world. This perception is a quintessence of over 300 years of scientific research. The quintessence, from Dalton's 'The sceptical chymist' to Perrin's Nobel Prize in 1926 and Pauling's 'Nature of the Chemical Bond' in 1939, results in the conclusion that the base unit of the SI quantity 'amount of substance' is not the mole but the dimensionless entity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Amount of substance' was introduced in the end of the 1950s as the physical quantity whose unit of measurement is the mole. Fundamental problems associated with this physical quantity have caused a never-ending discussion that continues to this day. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the expression 'amount of substance' is not a good choice, due to its generality and inclusion of the word 'substance'. Considering that samples of matter commonly handled by chemists are extremely numerous in entities and that the quality of being numerous or many is referred to as numerosity (a concept related to numerical cognition), this concept is reproposed as a replacement for amount of substance. Then, taking into account ongoing discussions toward a redefinition of the mole, the following definition is proposed for this SI base unit: 'the mole is the numerosity of a sample of entities numbering exactly 6.022 141 794 × 10'. The relationships between four extensive properties of matter (mass, volume, numerosity and number of entities) are detailed and the resulting intensive physical quantities (proportionality constants) are discussed. The concept numerosity is not the product of an invented synonym; furthermore, as a consequence of its generality, it can be used to express the quantity of entities in samples of matter, as well as of light, chemical reactions, etc. The acceptance that mole is the SI unit of numerosity might also solve most of the pedagogic problems associated heretofore with teaching of mole and amount of substance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This discussion puts a case of advocatus diaboli: that the Treaty of the Metre, its associated administrative apparatus and the International System of measurement units (SI) has basically failed for chemical measurement and is largely irrelevant to modern analysis, much of practical measurement in modern economies and much of recent technology. The practical use of the chemical unit termed the mole, the introduction to the SI units of the thermodynamic mole and the invention of a new physical quantity called “amount of substance” are each reviewed with the conclusion that the current means of expressing the results of chemical measurements are unsatisfactory in both practice and theory and are imposing large and readily avoidable costs on all advanced economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The knowledge of historical facts can help teachers and students to correctly appreciate a variety of scientific theories. It is important to be aware of the evolution of the basic concepts, particularly the ones our students find very abstract and therefore difficult to understand. Historical knowledge of chemical concepts will allow us to understand their difficulties and make them easier to teach successfully. In this paper we answer the following research questions: what was the historic and sociologic context in which chemical equivalent, mole and its magnitude amount of substance were introduced to science? How the lack of historic knowledge in science teaching contributes to the presence of distorted views of science and hampers meaningful learning? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the role of reference materials is confined to chemical measurements only. Recognized reference materials are one of the tools to obtain comparability of analytical results. Recognition demands confidence in the reference materials and in the reference material producers. A reference material producer is a technical competent body that is fully responsible for the certified or other property values of the reference material. The "analyte" has to be specified in relation to the selectivity of analytical procedure. The full range of reference materials can be presented as a three-dimensional space of the coordinates: analyte, matrix and application. If reference materials are used for calibration or correction of calibrations they establish the traceability of results of chemical measurements. The traceability is only valid within a stated range of uncertainty. Pure substances can represent the unit of amount of substance. A precondition is the microscale specification of the analyte and the accurate determination of the main component and/or the impurities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary draws on the perspective of teaching and learning to discuss the issue of redefining the mole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]