The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this version of the periodic table, plotting elements by abundance, accurate?  (Read 662 times)

Offline joeweller

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile


This is a Periodic Table by Abundance. It is an old version; is it still accurate?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 16:28:42 by chris »


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
It looks like this is reporting the abundance on Earth. It looks about right except for Fr and Pt, which should both be much smaller.

Compare to: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Elemental_abundances.svg/300px-Elemental_abundances.svg.png and https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Geol/geochem/ptabccr.gif
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 16:42:50 by chiralSPO »
 
The following users thanked this post: joeweller

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5335
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Is there really that much oxygen? I thought hydrogen was much more abundant...?
 
The following users thanked this post: joeweller

Offline joeweller

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Is there really that much oxygen? I thought hydrogen was much more abundant...?

well I don't remeber where I saw this but I think that hydrogen is more abundant in space
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
I think it's a question of whether we are talking about abundance by mass or by number of atoms. In Space, it's almost entirely hydrogen, with some helium, and a smattering of other elements, so this must be showing the abundance on Earth.

There is a LOT of oxygen on earth. Silica (SiO2) silicates (SiO44) carbonates (CO32), sulfates (SO42) phosphates (PO43) etc. are a significant proportion of the minerals on Earth.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 20:37:54 by chiralSPO »
 
The following users thanked this post: joeweller

Online evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4093
  • Thanked: 243 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Chris
I thought hydrogen was much more abundant...?
Of course, if you were measuring the Solar System, it would be mostly Hydrogen, a bit of Helium, and not very much of anything else - primarily due to the Sun and Jupiter.

Another measure is by volume. If you are looking at the surface of the Earth:
  • In water, the Oxygen is much larger than the hydrogen (and much of the earth's hydrogen is bound up in water and hydrocarbons/carbohydrates).
  • Oxygen often forms an O2- ion, and it swells up considerably compared to neutral oxygen atoms.
  • If I remember my geology classes, in silicates, the Oxygen atoms take up a considerable volume, with the silicon atoms nestled in-between.

If you are looking at the core of the Earth, you would find mostly Iron and Nickel, plus elements which are soluble in these metals.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Broadly, the radioactive ones are wrong. far too much Pa, Ra, Fr, Po, At and Rn etc compared to , eg U.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length