Skip to main content
A
Anonymous
September 11, 2006
Question

Calculation of mixture amounts

  • September 11, 2006
  • 2 replies
  • 3677 views
Collab,

This is probably a simple calculation for a chemist, however, I am a bit baffled. The mix, as it were, will be Component A plus 3 solvents:

Component A is a dispersion of silicone, 50% by weight, specific gravity = 0.861

Component B is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.712, 34% w/w of the mix

Component C is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.78, 35% w/w of the mix

Component D is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.79, % adjusted to get final dispersement % of Component A

The question is: How to mix using volume measure to obtain a 2% (w/w) dispersion of Component A in 10 ml total volume of mix?

Thanks,

Art

2 replies

S
StuartBruff23-Emerald V
23-Emerald V
September 11, 2006
On 9/11/2006 6:00:46 PM, ArtZ wrote:
== This is probably a simple calculation for a chemist, however, I am a bit baffled. The mix, as it were, will be Component A plus 3 solvents:
== Component A is a dispersion of silicone, 50% by weight, specific gravity = 0.861
== Component B is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.712, 34% w/w of the mix
== Component C is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.78, 35% w/w of the mix
== Component D is a solvent, specific gravity = 0.79, % adjusted to get final dispersement % of Component A
== The question is: How to mix using volume measure to obtain a 2% (w/w) dispersion of Component A in 10 ml total volume of mix?

Being even more baffled and not understanding the significance of the silicone dispersion "50% by weight", does the attached hold any clues?

Stuart
A
Anonymous
September 12, 2006
Stuart,

Thanks for your reply. The significance of "Component A is a dispersion of silicone, 50% by weight," just simply means that the available solute is 50% available.

With this in mind, for a 2% yield of component A (the solute), the "percentage weights in mix" as you called it, would change from 2% for wA to 4%.

Otherwise, seems your calculation is spot on. It's interesting that in reality, the problem is quite simple, yet I and several others made it out to be more complex than it is.

Thanks for the reality check.

Art
P
ptc-13682881-Visitor
1-Visitor
September 12, 2006
On 9/12/2006 12:00:58 AM, ArtZ wrote:
>Stuart,
...
>yet I and several others made
>it out to be more complex than
>it is.
>
>Thanks for the reality check.
>
>Art
___________________

Art,

You should be able to define an objective function and a criteria function depending upon the objective function ... then Minimize the criteria function.
Thus, you will have a simple logical approach that will suit up to 200 components (?), in an elegant simple steps.

jmG




P
ptc-13682881-Visitor
1-Visitor
September 11, 2006
Art,

There are lots and lots of chemicals sheets in the web.
at least visit Mike griffin.

jmG
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement