Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough, but
that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as mg/100ml
(or grams per liter; the difference between the two differs only in
the placement of the decimal point) and other times as a percentage,
presumably by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
problem is converting one into the other.

A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion factor
was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the RS of a wine
that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%. After thinking about
this for a while, it seems to me that the conversion factor would
depend on the density (or specific gravity) of the particular wine. By
my reasoning, the figure of 1.7 (or any other figure, for that matter)
may be a useful approximation for wines in general, but can never be
more than an approximation for that purpose.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough, but
> that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as mg/100ml
> (or grams per liter; the difference between the two differs only in
> the placement of the decimal point) and other times as a percentage,
> presumably by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
> problem is converting one into the other.
>
> A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion factor
> was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the RS of a wine
> that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%. After thinking about
> this for a while, it seems to me that the conversion factor would
> depend on the density (or specific gravity) of the particular wine. By
> my reasoning, the figure of 1.7 (or any other figure, for that matter)
> may be a useful approximation for wines in general, but can never be
> more than an approximation for that purpose.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me on this?
>
> Vino

Grams per Liter is how I have always understood RS.... As to the 1.7
conversion factor.... it's news to me.... would'nt it be a .75 conversion,
to get the actual amount of RS in a 750 ml bottle? or am I missing the point
completely?

cheers
Mathew

"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough, but
> that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as mg/100ml
> (or grams per liter; the difference between the two differs only in
> the placement of the decimal point) and other times as a percentage,
> presumably by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
> problem is converting one into the other.
>
> A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion factor
> was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the RS of a wine
> that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%. After thinking about
> this for a while, it seems to me that the conversion factor would
> depend on the density (or specific gravity) of the particular wine. By
> my reasoning, the figure of 1.7 (or any other figure, for that matter)
> may be a useful approximation for wines in general, but can never be
> more than an approximation for that purpose.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Typically, in the USA, RS is expressed as grams per 100 ml, or degrees brix.
Degrees brix is another way of saying grams of sucrose per 100 grams of
solution. To express brix as weight/volume percent, one needs to know the
density of the solution. This can be gleaned from specific gravity
measurement. However, since brix measurements are readily convertible to
specific gravity measurement using a conversion table, one need really only
know one or the other, and the temperature at which the measurement was
taken, as long as one has a conversion table.

Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:24:50 GMT, "Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines"
> wrote:

>Typically, in the USA, RS is expressed as grams per 100 ml, or degrees brix.
FWIW, I've never seen the term brix applied to wine itself. Grape
juice yes, but not wine.

>Degrees brix is another way of saying grams of sucrose per 100 grams of
>solution.
This has always been my understanding.

>To express brix as weight/volume percent
This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense. Something expressed as
percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.

> one needs to know the
>density of the solution. This can be gleaned from specific gravity
>measurement. However, since brix measurements are readily convertible to
>specific gravity measurement using a conversion table, one need really only
>know one or the other, and the temperature at which the measurement was
>taken, as long as one has a conversion table.
Sorry, but you lost me in all that. Again, you are using the term
brix, which I have heretofore assumed was used only for grape juice,
not wine itself. In grape juice, the solvent is almost entirely water
and my guess is that little accuracy is sacrificed by assuming that it
is all water and you seem to be suggesting that the conversion table
you refer to indeed makes this assumption. When one gets to wine,
however, other liquids, e.g. alcohol, with different densities come
into play and assumptions that were valid with grape juice may no
longer be valid.

If any of this appears to be argumentative, it is not intended to be.
I'm just trying to understand something that has puzzled me for some
time and that I have gotten conflicting answers on from different
people.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

"Mathew Kagis" > wrote in message news:<89jqc.8053$9P6.4126@clgrps12>...
> "Vino" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough, but
> > that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as mg/100ml
> > (or grams per liter; the difference between the two differs only in
> > the placement of the decimal point) and other times as a percentage,
> > presumably by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
> > problem is converting one into the other.
> >
> > A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion factor
> > was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the RS of a wine
> > that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%. After thinking about
> > this for a while, it seems to me that the conversion factor would
> > depend on the density (or specific gravity) of the particular wine. By
> > my reasoning, the figure of 1.7 (or any other figure, for that matter)
> > may be a useful approximation for wines in general, but can never be
> > more than an approximation for that purpose.
> >
> > Can anyone enlighten me on this?
> >
> > Vino
>
> Grams per Liter is how I have always understood RS.... As to the 1.7
> conversion factor.... it's news to me.... would'nt it be a .75 conversion,
> to get the actual amount of RS in a 750 ml bottle? or am I missing the point
> completely?
>
> cheers
> Mathew

The answer is you're both making this more difficult than it needs to
be. There is no conversion factor - no 1.7 and no .75 - it's close
enough to just move the decimal. A liter of wine weighs very close to
1000 grams (or 1 kilogram, if you like), so 1 gram per liter is 1 part
in 1000 or 0.1%. Sometimes you see grams per 100 milliliters (ml); a
ml (a thousandth of a liter) weighs close to 1 gram and so 1 gram per
100 ml is 1 part in 100 or 1% and you don't even have to move the
decimal.

- Mark W.

Vino wrote:

> This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
> must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
> own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense. Something expressed as
> percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
> the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.

While you're technically correct, w/v percentages are used in chemistry.
I suspect that the practice arose from work with aqueous solutions,
where the density is usually close enough to 1 to render the quantity in
effect unitless.

Mark Lipton

On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:58:22 -0500, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>Vino wrote:
>
>> This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
>> must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
>> own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense. Something expressed as
>> percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
>> the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.
>
>While you're technically correct, w/v percentages are used in chemistry.
> I suspect that the practice arose from work with aqueous solutions,
>where the density is usually close enough to 1 to render the quantity in
>effect unitless.
>
Chemistry was an incidental part of my training as an engineer and it
was a long time ago. I guess I can accept that, while the term may be
theoretically incorrect, it can nevertheless be useful in certain
situations. In an earlier posting in this thread Mark implied that the
density of wine (which is, chemically, an aqueous solution, albeit a
heavenly one) is close enough to the density of water that the number
for grams/liter is pretty close to being the same as that for
percentage, give or take a decimal point or two. Is this what you're
implying also?

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Mark Lipton > wrote in message >...
> Vino wrote:
>
> > This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
> > must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
> > own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense. Something expressed as
> > percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
> > the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.
>
> While you're technically correct, w/v percentages are used in chemistry.
> I suspect that the practice arose from work with aqueous solutions,
> where the density is usually close enough to 1 to render the quantity in
> effect unitless.
>
> Mark Lipton

That's certainly the case with wine - SG of dry wine is typically
around 0.992, so the conversion to weight/weight wouldn't change the
numbers much!

- Mark W.

"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:24:50 GMT, "Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines"
> > wrote:
>
> >Typically, in the USA, RS is expressed as grams per 100 ml, or degrees
brix.
> FWIW, I've never seen the term brix applied to wine itself. Grape
> juice yes, but not wine.

It's a relatively frequent occurrence with Late Harvest wines from the USA,
completely allowable by the BATF and the easiest way of expressing residual
sugar in the same units as sugar at harvest.

>
> >Degrees brix is another way of saying grams of sucrose per 100 grams of
> >solution.
> This has always been my understanding.

So you agree that Brix is a weight percent.

>
> >To express brix as weight/volume percent
> This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
> must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
> own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense.

Grams per 100 ml is a weight/volume percent. Grams per liter is not the way
RS is normally expressed in the USA. Whether you like it or not, those are
the units used typically used, and whether you like it or not weight /volume
measurements are used regularly. Why is milligrams per liter called "parts
per million", when they aren't like parts? Just the way it is.


>Something expressed as
> percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
> the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.

Again, not really. The only thing is that there must be a convention for
it.

>
> > one needs to know the
> >density of the solution. This can be gleaned from specific gravity
> >measurement. However, since brix measurements are readily convertible to
> >specific gravity measurement using a conversion table, one need really
only
> >know one or the other, and the temperature at which the measurement was
> >taken, as long as one has a conversion table.
> Sorry, but you lost me in all that. Again, you are using the term
> brix, which I have heretofore assumed was used only for grape juice,
> not wine itself. In grape juice, the solvent is almost entirely water
> and my guess is that little accuracy is sacrificed by assuming that it
> is all water and you seem to be suggesting that the conversion table
> you refer to indeed makes this assumption. When one gets to wine,
> however, other liquids, e.g. alcohol, with different densities come
> into play and assumptions that were valid with grape juice may no
> longer be valid.

Even water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter only at standard
temp. Different sugar solutions change density at different rates with
changes in temperature, and in different temperature ranges. The density of
juice is far greater than the density of dry wine, and the density of sweet
wine derived from that juice is somewhere in the middle of that range.
Assumptions one makes concerning density of a wine are valid only for wines
with similar concentrations of components.

>
> If any of this appears to be argumentative, it is not intended to be.
> I'm just trying to understand something that has puzzled me for some
> time and that I have gotten conflicting answers on from different
> people.

Well, I'm a professional winemaker, so all I can say is "trust me" (grin).

Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines

>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:11:22 GMT, "Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines"
> wrote:

>
>"Vino" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:24:50 GMT, "Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Typically, in the USA, RS is expressed as grams per 100 ml, or degrees
>brix.
>> FWIW, I've never seen the term brix applied to wine itself. Grape
>> juice yes, but not wine.
>
>It's a relatively frequent occurrence with Late Harvest wines from the USA,
>completely allowable by the BATF and the easiest way of expressing residual
>sugar in the same units as sugar at harvest.
>
I didn't say it doesn't happen. I just said I've never seen RS in a
wine (including LH wines) expressed as brix. But I guess there's no
reason it can't be. And since we agree (see below) on what brix means,
our disagreement (if there is one) is over terminology, not substance.

Slightly OT: Quite a while back, a poster indicated that the only
requirement for labeling a wine as LH in the USA is that the brix at
harvest be shown on the label. I don't know this to be true but I've
never seen anything to contradict it. Do you know if this is correct?
>
>> >Degrees brix is another way of saying grams of sucrose per 100 grams of
>> >solution.
>> This has always been my understanding.
>
>So you agree that Brix is a weight percent.
Absolutely!
>>
>> >To express brix as weight/volume percent
>> This term (weight/volume percent) sounds fishy to me. Weight/volume
>> must be expressed in some units, e.g. grams/liter, and stands on its
>> own. Adding "percent" to it makes no sense.
>
>Grams per 100 ml is a weight/volume percent. Grams per liter is not the way
>RS is normally expressed in the USA. Whether you like it or not, those are
>the units used typically used, and whether you like it or not weight /volume
>measurements are used regularly. Why is milligrams per liter called "parts
>per million", when they aren't like parts? Just the way it is.
It's not a matter of liking it or not. I'm just trying to understand
it. Whether the convention is grams per liter or mg/100ml is not
important, since one can easily be converted into the other by
shifting the decimal point. And I still contend that "weight/volume
percent" is technically incorrect, but it seems to be useful so I'll
drop the issue.
>
> >Something expressed as
>> percent is a ratio and is unitless, although one must ensure that that
>> the units used to calculate the ratio are identical.
>
>Again, not really. The only thing is that there must be a convention for
>it.
I must disagree. The only "convention" that is required is that the
*type* of unit must be specified, i.e. "by volume" or "by weight",
etc. Maybe this is what you meant.
>>
>
>Even water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter only at standard
>temp. Different sugar solutions change density at different rates with
>changes in temperature, and in different temperature ranges. The density of
>juice is far greater than the density of dry wine, and the density of sweet
>wine derived from that juice is somewhere in the middle of that range.
>Assumptions one makes concerning density of a wine are valid only for wines
>with similar concentrations of components.
I would have to agree with this, and it sort of goes to the heart of
my original posting. But, in the end, are the numbers sufficiently
different to be significant?

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Fodder: this is from a chemical analysis report on one of our Austrian
wines (where it relates to sugar

reduzierende Zucker (als Invertzucker) in g/l: 224,50

zuckerfreier Extrakt (berechnet) in g/l: 50,80


Just to look at how other countries see it,
e. winemonger

"Vino" > skrev i melding
...
>... I'm just trying to understand
> it. Whether the convention is grams per liter or mg/100ml is not
> important,
Ahem, may an European point out that a 'milli', m for short, is 1 1000th of
something - so it will have to be g/l (grams per litre) or mg/ml (milligrams
per millilitre) - which, of course, results in the same number for both.
Anders

Vino > wrote:

> Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough,
> but that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as
> mg/100ml

Never have seen that meassure, but we do not see US wines that
often here in Europe.

> (or grams per liter;

That the way it's always given in Europe, both in technical data
sheets from the labs and on labels. EU regulations regarding
sweetness labelling for still and sparkling wines refer to g/l.

> the difference between the two differs only in the placement of
> the decimal point) and other times as a percentage, presumably
> by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
> problem is converting one into the other.

Very easy: 1 g/l = 0.1 percent, or 10 g/l = 1 percent.

> A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion
> factor was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the
> RS of a wine that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%.

This obviously is wrong. I am not sure, but there might be a
misunderstanding: 16 to 17 grams (hence probaly the factor "1.7") of
sugar ferment to 1 percent alcohol by volume.

Or, one sometimes can read of a given sauternes (Broadbent cites
this in his book) counting "17 degrees, i.e. 14 + 3", this refers
to 14 percent of alcohol per volume plus 3 "potential" percent of
alcohol (= residual sugar), in this case ~ 50g/l or 5.0 percent.

HTH to end confusion.

M.

(winemonger) wrote:

> Fodder: this is from a chemical analysis report on one of our
> Austrian wines (where it relates to sugar
>
> reduzierende Zucker (als Invertzucker) in g/l: 224,50

That the actual residual sugar (must be quite a sticky!).

> zuckerfreier Extrakt (berechnet) in g/l: 50,80

And that's the sugar-free extract.

M.

Michael Pronay > wrote in message >...
> (winemonger) wrote:
>
> > Fodder: this is from a chemical analysis report on one of our
> > Austrian wines (where it relates to sugar
> >
> > reduzierende Zucker (als Invertzucker) in g/l: 224,50
>
> That the actual residual sugar (must be quite a sticky!).


Indeed! It's a Ruster Ausbruch.

-e.winemonger

On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:46:53 GMT, "Anders Tørneskog"
> wrote:

>
>"Vino" > skrev i melding
.. .
>>... I'm just trying to understand
>> it. Whether the convention is grams per liter or mg/100ml is not
>> important,
>Ahem, may an European point out that a 'milli', m for short, is 1 1000th of
>something - so it will have to be g/l (grams per litre) or mg/ml (milligrams
>per millilitre) - which, of course, results in the same number for both.
>Anders
>
I didn't mean to imply that the two are numerically equivalent, simply
that either measurement would be valid. The two examples I mentioned
differ only in the placement of a decimal point. (Which would be a
*big* difference if one were to get them mixed up in practice.) We are
not in disagreement.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

On 27 May 2004 14:30:38 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Vino > wrote:
>
>> Residual sugar (RS) in a wine is sometimes (not often enough,
>> but that's another issue for another day) shown on the label as
>> mg/100ml
>
>Never have seen that meassure, but we do not see US wines that
>often here in Europe.

After doing some checking, I'm not sure I have either. I *have* seen
it as g/100ml, but only on specification sheets, which are often
difficult to track down (if they exist at all). In fact I canot recall
ever seeing RS provided on the label of a table wine. On the labels of
things like a LH or TBA I can only recall seeing it expressed as a
percent.
>
>> the difference between the two differs only in the placement of
>> the decimal point) and other times as a percentage, presumably
>> by weight. Either measure is reasonably straightforward. My
>> problem is converting one into the other.
>
>Very easy: 1 g/l = 0.1 percent, or 10 g/l = 1 percent.
>
Strictly speaking, this is true only when the solvent has a density of
1.0 g/ml. In other words, water at standard temperature. If the
solvent were, say, 0.5 g/ml then 10 g/l would be 2 percent (by
weight). I guess the density of table wines is close enough to that of
water that little accuracy is sacrificed by assuming they are
identical. For wines with very high sugar contents, the assumption is
probably less valid. Is that why RS is normally (in my experience,
anyway) expressed as a percent for these wines?

>> A posting in an earlier thread indicated that the conversion
>> factor was 1.7, meaning, if I understood it correctly, that the
>> RS of a wine that contained 1.7 grams per liter would be 1.0%.
>
>This obviously is wrong. I am not sure, but there might be a
>misunderstanding: 16 to 17 grams (hence probaly the factor "1.7") of
>sugar ferment to 1 percent alcohol by volume.

After re-reading the posting I referred to, I found that I made
exactly the error that you describe.

>Or, one sometimes can read of a given sauternes (Broadbent cites
>this in his book) counting "17 degrees, i.e. 14 + 3", this refers
>to 14 percent of alcohol per volume plus 3 "potential" percent of
>alcohol (= residual sugar), in this case ~ 50g/l or 5.0 percent.
>
>HTH to end confusion.
>
It went a long way, in any case.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Vino > wrote:

>> Very easy: 1 g/l = 0.1 percent, or 10 g/l = 1 percent.

> Strictly speaking, this is true only when the solvent has a
> density of 1.0 g/ml. In other words, water at standard
> temperature. If the solvent were, say, 0.5 g/ml then 10 g/l
> would be 2 percent (by weight). I guess the density of table
> wines is close enough to that of water that little accuracy is
> sacrificed by assuming they are identical.

True. And it's accurate enough for labelling and general
information purposes, although probably not for wine labs'
analyses.

> For wines with very high sugar contents, the assumption is
> probably less valid. Is that why RS is normally (in my
> experience, anyway) expressed as a percent for these wines?

I don't think so (but I may be wrong, of course) - I fell that in
the US (both on labels and in magazines) the info on RS given as a
percentage is much more common and widespread. In Europe it's the
other way round.

M.

Vino > wrote in message >. ..

> Strictly speaking, this is true only when the solvent has a density of
> 1.0 g/ml. In other words, water at standard temperature. If the
> solvent were, say, 0.5 g/ml then 10 g/l would be 2 percent (by
> weight). I guess the density of table wines is close enough to that of
> water that little accuracy is sacrificed by assuming they are
> identical.
<snip>

In the spirit of nitpicking ;^), this isn't quite right, either - it
would only be true if the density of the *solution* is 1.0 g/ml!

- Mark W.

On 29 May 2004 16:38:02 -0700, (Mark Willstatter)
wrote:

>Vino > wrote in message >. ..
>
>> Strictly speaking, this is true only when the solvent has a density of
>> 1.0 g/ml. In other words, water at standard temperature. If the
>> solvent were, say, 0.5 g/ml then 10 g/l would be 2 percent (by
>> weight). I guess the density of table wines is close enough to that of
>> water that little accuracy is sacrificed by assuming they are
>> identical.
><snip>
>
>In the spirit of nitpicking ;^), this isn't quite right, either - it
>would only be true if the density of the *solution* is 1.0 g/ml!
>
You're right, of course. The point you make is one that occurred to me
as I thought through the issue I originally raised in this thread.
Another question directly related to your comment is that of how much
the volume of a solvent increases when a solid, like sugar, is
dissolved in it. (Of course the liquid then becomes a "solution", not
just a "solvent".) For example, if I dissolve 10 grams of sugar in a
liter of water, what is the volume of the resulting solution?

The practical importance of this sort of thing, when it comes to wine,
is nil. But I'm the sort of person who finds these things intriquing.
Perhaps you are too.

Mark Lipton, are you listening?

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Vino wrote:

>
> You're right, of course. The point you make is one that occurred to me
> as I thought through the issue I originally raised in this thread.
> Another question directly related to your comment is that of how much
> the volume of a solvent increases when a solid, like sugar, is
> dissolved in it. (Of course the liquid then becomes a "solution", not
> just a "solvent".) For example, if I dissolve 10 grams of sugar in a
> liter of water, what is the volume of the resulting solution?
>
> The practical importance of this sort of thing, when it comes to wine,
> is nil. But I'm the sort of person who finds these things intriquing.
> Perhaps you are too.
>
> Mark Lipton, are you listening?

Yup. In the case of sucrose, the answer is that the volume increase is slightly *less* than the
sum of the volumes; some salts, on the other hand, will actually increase the volume of the
solution as they dissolve. It all depends on how the solute interacts with the solvent -- and
even then it's not anything that's easy to predict.

HTH
Mark Lipton

On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:04:14 GMT, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>
>
>Vino wrote:
>
>>
>> You're right, of course. The point you make is one that occurred to me
>> as I thought through the issue I originally raised in this thread.
>> Another question directly related to your comment is that of how much
>> the volume of a solvent increases when a solid, like sugar, is
>> dissolved in it. (Of course the liquid then becomes a "solution", not
>> just a "solvent".) For example, if I dissolve 10 grams of sugar in a
>> liter of water, what is the volume of the resulting solution?
>>
>> The practical importance of this sort of thing, when it comes to wine,
>> is nil. But I'm the sort of person who finds these things intriquing.
>> Perhaps you are too.
>>
>> Mark Lipton, are you listening?
>
>Yup. In the case of sucrose, the answer is that the volume increase is slightly *less* than the
>sum of the volumes; some salts, on the other hand, will actually increase the volume of the
>solution as they dissolve. It all depends on how the solute interacts with the solvent -- and
>even then it's not anything that's easy to predict.

As JFK used to say, "if you're not part of the solvent, you're not
part of the solution". I think.

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> As JFK used to say, "if you're not part of the solvent, you're not
> part of the solution". I think.

:-)

Mark Lipton