1
$\begingroup$

I study chemistry in an University and I have two professors that says opposing things. One says that the physical state must be subscribed (1 at the picture) and other that it must be written to the left side (2). Since both of them are posdocs and have way more experience in chemistry than me, I really don't know to whom I should list. i've tried to look for a recommendation in the IUPAC site, but I couldn't find anything about that. Someone could help me with a link from some organization (preferably an international one) that recommends about this topic?enter image description here

| improve this question | | | | |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Overall science is not affected by whether you write subscript or a superscript or in line. Afterall all notation was invented by humans. When professor quibble over these things my suggestion for them is to read the problem of "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?" Apparently when Constantinople was falling, allegedly scholars were discussing these problems. Anyway, the lesson is that science is more important, notation comes later.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), makes recommendations to systematize notation. Show the book "Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry" Third Edition, https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847557889. It is available for free.

There was a similar question What is the standard way to denote physical states in a chemical reaction?

but the reference is old. The above reference is recent but there is no difference. Just for your interest, to see how old that reference is, it looks like type-written text!

enter image description here

They suggest to write the state of aggregation as they call it, just next to your symbol like $\ce{Na(s)}$, not as a subscript.

| improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would not downplay the importance of "notation", it is extremely important. The question is, is the notation self-evident, is there room for misunderstanding or confusion? I have personally never seen version 1 in the OP and would suggest sticking to 2 which is standard convention. I would be interested to know who is the source and propagates use of 1. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Feb 6 at 10:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.