Mdthbs

Duplicate Files

Uri tokenizer as a simple state machine

Do Bayesian credible intervals treat the estimated parameter as a random variable?

How do I prevent other wifi networks from showing up on my computer?

Are there any elected officials in the U.S. who are not legislators, judges, or constitutional officers?

Sum ergo cogito?

"There were either twelve sexes or none."

Is there any way to keep a player from killing an NPC?

Why is the UK so keen to remove the "backstop" when their leadership seems to think that no border will be needed in Northern Ireland?

How to find out the average duration of the peer-review process for a given journal?

Architectural feasibility of a tiered circular stone keep

Notepad++ cannot print

Where can/should I, as a high schooler, publish a paper regarding the derivation of a formula?

How to determine car loan length as a function of how long I plan to keep a car

What verb is かまされる?

Are modern clipless shoes and pedals that much better than toe clips and straps?

What does zitch dog mean?

How do you interpolate outside the range of data?

If two Lore Bards used cutting words on an ability check or attack, would they stack?

Duplicate instruments in unison in an orchestra

Why doesn't 'd /= d' throw a division by zero exception?

Why do banks “park” their money at the European Central Bank?

Circular Reasoning for Epsilon-Delta Proof?

Did anyone try to find the little box that held Professor Moriarty and his wife after the crash?

“T” in subscript in formulas

Why does Ruthenium only have one electron in its 5s orbital in the neutral oxidation state?Why does reduced mass help when talking about two body problems?X[Y|Z] formulasPhase subscript for supercritical reagent?Brackets in chemical formulasUse of subscript cc for HCl and H2SO4Different formulas for copper pyrites and bauxiteHow does the energy released during a bond formation typically manifest itself on atomic level?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

11

$begingroup$

Does a “T” in a formula subscript indicate all possible numbers of atoms? $ce{FeO_T}$ is the specific one I came across (in the "bulk chemistry" table here: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/simulant_lunarmare), it seems to make sense in context but I've not done chemistry since school (tried googling already) so thought I'd better check.

inorganic-chemistry notation

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Never saw this one and wouldn't believe it even if I did. Little "x" would do, though.
  $endgroup$
  – Ivan Neretin
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  geokem.com/glossary.html. See the 10th entry.
  $endgroup$
  – William R. Ebenezer
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @IvanNeretin extremely common in geochemistry. For a visible example, see the Earth Wikipedia page, in the chemical composition table.
  $endgroup$
  – Gimelist
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

11

$begingroup$

Does a “T” in a formula subscript indicate all possible numbers of atoms? $ce{FeO_T}$ is the specific one I came across (in the "bulk chemistry" table here: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/simulant_lunarmare), it seems to make sense in context but I've not done chemistry since school (tried googling already) so thought I'd better check.

inorganic-chemistry notation

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Never saw this one and wouldn't believe it even if I did. Little "x" would do, though.
  $endgroup$
  – Ivan Neretin
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  geokem.com/glossary.html. See the 10th entry.
  $endgroup$
  – William R. Ebenezer
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @IvanNeretin extremely common in geochemistry. For a visible example, see the Earth Wikipedia page, in the chemical composition table.
  $endgroup$
  – Gimelist
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Does a “T” in a formula subscript indicate all possible numbers of atoms? $ce{FeO_T}$ is the specific one I came across (in the "bulk chemistry" table here: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/simulant_lunarmare), it seems to make sense in context but I've not done chemistry since school (tried googling already) so thought I'd better check.

inorganic-chemistry notation

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

edited yesterday

andselisk♦

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

New contributor

axx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked yesterday

axxaxx

5622 bronze badges

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

13

$begingroup$

Interesting question.
It looks like this is a rather common notation in geology and refers to the total iron(II) and iron(III) oxide (e.g. ferrous and ferric) content.
For a chemist this is probably somewhat confusing as “total” is normally denoted via subscripted abbreviation “tot”.
Flipping through numerous sources, it appears there is no standardized notation and alongside with $ce{FeO_T},$ $ce{FeO_t},$ $ce{FeOt}$ and $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$ are being used.

An introductory textbook by Shikazono [1, p. 21] explicitly defines $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$:

$ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$: Total iron $(ce{FeO} + ce{Fe2O3})$

Reference

1. Shikazono, N. Introduction to Earth and Planetary System Science: New View of Earth, Planets and Humans; Springer: Tokyo; New York, 2012. ISBN 978-4-431-54058-8.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

9

$begingroup$

I will add to the correct answer by andselisk that the reason for this notation is that in most geochemical analytical methods, oxygen is not measured.
Instead, all metals are measured and oxygen is calculated by stoichiometry assuming (often very reasonably) that all metals are as oxides.

As the vast majority of major elements in geological materials have only one oxidation state throughout all geologically reasonable conditions, this works out very well.

Iron is an exception: it is a major element that commonly exists both as divalent and trivalent. Because the oxidation state is much harder to analyse than the iron contents, iron is commonly reported as either all 2+ as FeO(t) or all 3+ as Fe2O3(t).

share|improve this answer

edited 16 hours ago

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  This seems similar to, for example, how a fertiliser can have its phosphorus content measured in "percent weight as $ce{P2O5}$" or "percent weight as $ce{PO_4^{3-}}$. I've always found it confusing and opaque; why perform the completely unnecessary assumption that the element is found as a particular substance, especially in cases which clearly do not reflect reality, such as $ce{P2O5}$? Such easily avoidable problems...
  $endgroup$
  – Nicolau Saker Neto
  23 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @NicolauSakerNeto that's mostly a matter of opinion and convention. To me, as a geochemist, using $ce{PO4^3-}$ is misleading, because it adds oxygens that do not "belong" to the phosphorus. It is also not a neutral thermodynamic component, which personally makes me cringe. On the other hand, $ce{P2O5}$, or $ce{PO_{2.5}}$, is perfectly fine as it tells you exactly how much phosphorus (and associated oxygen) there is in the compound, without any assumptions.
  $endgroup$
  – Gimelist
  16 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

axx is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119530%2ft-in-subscript-in-formulas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

13

$begingroup$

Interesting question.
It looks like this is a rather common notation in geology and refers to the total iron(II) and iron(III) oxide (e.g. ferrous and ferric) content.
For a chemist this is probably somewhat confusing as “total” is normally denoted via subscripted abbreviation “tot”.
Flipping through numerous sources, it appears there is no standardized notation and alongside with $ce{FeO_T},$ $ce{FeO_t},$ $ce{FeOt}$ and $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$ are being used.

An introductory textbook by Shikazono [1, p. 21] explicitly defines $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$:

$ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$: Total iron $(ce{FeO} + ce{Fe2O3})$

Reference

1. Shikazono, N. Introduction to Earth and Planetary System Science: New View of Earth, Planets and Humans; Springer: Tokyo; New York, 2012. ISBN 978-4-431-54058-8.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

13

$begingroup$

Interesting question.
It looks like this is a rather common notation in geology and refers to the total iron(II) and iron(III) oxide (e.g. ferrous and ferric) content.
For a chemist this is probably somewhat confusing as “total” is normally denoted via subscripted abbreviation “tot”.
Flipping through numerous sources, it appears there is no standardized notation and alongside with $ce{FeO_T},$ $ce{FeO_t},$ $ce{FeOt}$ and $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$ are being used.

An introductory textbook by Shikazono [1, p. 21] explicitly defines $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$:

$ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$: Total iron $(ce{FeO} + ce{Fe2O3})$

Reference

1. Shikazono, N. Introduction to Earth and Planetary System Science: New View of Earth, Planets and Humans; Springer: Tokyo; New York, 2012. ISBN 978-4-431-54058-8.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Interesting question.
It looks like this is a rather common notation in geology and refers to the total iron(II) and iron(III) oxide (e.g. ferrous and ferric) content.
For a chemist this is probably somewhat confusing as “total” is normally denoted via subscripted abbreviation “tot”.
Flipping through numerous sources, it appears there is no standardized notation and alongside with $ce{FeO_T},$ $ce{FeO_t},$ $ce{FeOt}$ and $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$ are being used.

An introductory textbook by Shikazono [1, p. 21] explicitly defines $ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$:

$ce{FeO^mathrm{t}}$: Total iron $(ce{FeO} + ce{Fe2O3})$

Reference

1. Shikazono, N. Introduction to Earth and Planetary System Science: New View of Earth, Planets and Humans; Springer: Tokyo; New York, 2012. ISBN 978-4-431-54058-8.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

answered yesterday

andselisk♦andselisk

22.2k88 gold badges7777 silver badges149149 bronze badges

9

$begingroup$

I will add to the correct answer by andselisk that the reason for this notation is that in most geochemical analytical methods, oxygen is not measured.
Instead, all metals are measured and oxygen is calculated by stoichiometry assuming (often very reasonably) that all metals are as oxides.

As the vast majority of major elements in geological materials have only one oxidation state throughout all geologically reasonable conditions, this works out very well.

Iron is an exception: it is a major element that commonly exists both as divalent and trivalent. Because the oxidation state is much harder to analyse than the iron contents, iron is commonly reported as either all 2+ as FeO(t) or all 3+ as Fe2O3(t).

share|improve this answer

edited 16 hours ago

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  This seems similar to, for example, how a fertiliser can have its phosphorus content measured in "percent weight as $ce{P2O5}$" or "percent weight as $ce{PO_4^{3-}}$. I've always found it confusing and opaque; why perform the completely unnecessary assumption that the element is found as a particular substance, especially in cases which clearly do not reflect reality, such as $ce{P2O5}$? Such easily avoidable problems...
  $endgroup$
  – Nicolau Saker Neto
  23 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @NicolauSakerNeto that's mostly a matter of opinion and convention. To me, as a geochemist, using $ce{PO4^3-}$ is misleading, because it adds oxygens that do not "belong" to the phosphorus. It is also not a neutral thermodynamic component, which personally makes me cringe. On the other hand, $ce{P2O5}$, or $ce{PO_{2.5}}$, is perfectly fine as it tells you exactly how much phosphorus (and associated oxygen) there is in the compound, without any assumptions.
  $endgroup$
  – Gimelist
  16 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

9

$begingroup$

I will add to the correct answer by andselisk that the reason for this notation is that in most geochemical analytical methods, oxygen is not measured.
Instead, all metals are measured and oxygen is calculated by stoichiometry assuming (often very reasonably) that all metals are as oxides.

As the vast majority of major elements in geological materials have only one oxidation state throughout all geologically reasonable conditions, this works out very well.

Iron is an exception: it is a major element that commonly exists both as divalent and trivalent. Because the oxidation state is much harder to analyse than the iron contents, iron is commonly reported as either all 2+ as FeO(t) or all 3+ as Fe2O3(t).

share|improve this answer

edited 16 hours ago

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  This seems similar to, for example, how a fertiliser can have its phosphorus content measured in "percent weight as $ce{P2O5}$" or "percent weight as $ce{PO_4^{3-}}$. I've always found it confusing and opaque; why perform the completely unnecessary assumption that the element is found as a particular substance, especially in cases which clearly do not reflect reality, such as $ce{P2O5}$? Such easily avoidable problems...
  $endgroup$
  – Nicolau Saker Neto
  23 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @NicolauSakerNeto that's mostly a matter of opinion and convention. To me, as a geochemist, using $ce{PO4^3-}$ is misleading, because it adds oxygens that do not "belong" to the phosphorus. It is also not a neutral thermodynamic component, which personally makes me cringe. On the other hand, $ce{P2O5}$, or $ce{PO_{2.5}}$, is perfectly fine as it tells you exactly how much phosphorus (and associated oxygen) there is in the compound, without any assumptions.
  $endgroup$
  – Gimelist
  16 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I will add to the correct answer by andselisk that the reason for this notation is that in most geochemical analytical methods, oxygen is not measured.
Instead, all metals are measured and oxygen is calculated by stoichiometry assuming (often very reasonably) that all metals are as oxides.

As the vast majority of major elements in geological materials have only one oxidation state throughout all geologically reasonable conditions, this works out very well.

Iron is an exception: it is a major element that commonly exists both as divalent and trivalent. Because the oxidation state is much harder to analyse than the iron contents, iron is commonly reported as either all 2+ as FeO(t) or all 3+ as Fe2O3(t).

share|improve this answer

edited 16 hours ago

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

edited 16 hours ago

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges

answered yesterday

GimelistGimelist

4,1171616 silver badges4646 bronze badges