1
$\begingroup$

I'm translating a Russian biotech text, and there's this sentence with a number without measurement units:

The contents of the wells were discarded; the wells were washed three times with 200 µL of Buffer containing 0.05 of Tween 20.

I was told that this figure indicates a volume fraction, and is dimensionless, hence no units after it. Will this be understood by the native speaker of English as-is, without any units, as in my quote?

Or is it better to write it down as:

The contents of the wells were discarded; the wells were washed three times with 200 µL of Buffer containing 5% (v/v) of Tween 20.

Or maybe like this:

The contents of the wells were discarded; the wells were washed three times with 200 µL of Buffer containing 5 vol% of Tween 20.

Is there a way to retain 0.05 and somehow indicate that this is a volume fraction?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your ways are the correct ones. "0.05 v/v" won't pose any doubts, too. Or "0.05 volume fraction" as you did here. But I vote for your two options. $\endgroup$ – Alchimista Jan 30 '18 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ Your ways are the correct ones. "0.05 v/v" won't pose any doubts, too. Or "0.05 volume fraction" as you did here. But I vote for your two options. $\endgroup$ – Alchimista Jan 30 '18 at 19:34
1
$\begingroup$

I think it would be wise to include units, because how would you distinguish between mass and volume fractions? Options 2 and 3 that you present are both seen in the scientific literature and text books. My opinion is that option 3 is the least ambiguous way to present both the numeric value and the context (i.e. the units).

$\endgroup$

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.