Introduction Heat capacity Density and sound speed Solution theory Freezing points and osmotic pressure Dilution heat Enthalpy as potential function Discussion Acknowledgement References Appendix
250 254 256 263 269 280 289 293 295 295 299
249
2 50
R. FEISTELand E. HAGEN
1. INTRODUCTION
The most compact representation of thermodynamic properties of any substance is the quantitative mathematical tbrmulation of one of its so-called thermodynamic potentials. Such a potential function has been computed for pure water steam in a wide range of values of pressure and temperature (HAAR, GALLAGHERand KELL, 1984). For seawater, however, the UNESCO formulae (FOFONOFFand MILLARD,1983) as described in the International Oceanographic Tables (referred hereafter as IOT-4) for density, heat capacity, and sound speed, represent the widely accepted standard for its equilibrium properties. To compensate mutual inconsistencies between these formulae, in a previous paper (FEISTEL, 1993) we have proposed a polynomial-likefunction for the specific Free Enthalpy G (S,t,p) (referred to as G93 later in this paper) as a function of salinity S, temperature t, and pressure p. Because this function is a thermodynamic potential function expressed in its natural variables, all relevantquantitative thermodynamicproperties can be derived from it by mathematic rules in a completely consistent way. Besides the mechanical ("P-V-T") properies mentioned in IOT-4, in G93 thermochemicalproperties have been included, too; dilution heat measurements of MILLERO,HANSENand HOFF(1973) as well as an expression for the osmotic coefficientderived by MILLEROand LEUNG(1976) from freezing point depression measurements. To maintain compatibility with the present standard, the computation of G93 was kept quantitativelyas close as possible to the IOT-4 formulas, replacing high-pressure density and highpressure heat capacity by new values extracted from the sound speed equation of CHEN and MILLERO(1977) by a method slightly different from that used by those authors. In the present paper, however, we intend to go beyond this state, re-adjusting the previous potential G93 to (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(v) (vi)
(vii)
the maximum density data of CALDWELL(1978), the sound speed formula of DEL GROSSO(1974), directly recalculated limiting laws, directly used freezing point measurements, an extended set of dilution heat data, the International Temperature Scale 1990, the standard ocean reference state.
CALDWELL'Smeasurements of the temperature of maximum density show deviations from IOT-4 that amount to 0.3°C in extreme situations such as the winter-time convection in relatively fresh water (humide climate) such as in the Baltic and the Adriatic. Including these data we intend to improve the precision of seawater properties at low temperatures in general, which are important for various convection instabilities and processes of deep water formation at high latitudes. DEL GROSSO's sound velocity differs from IOT-4 speed up to 1 m/s in the deep sea. As recent investigations of long-range travel times (DUSHAW,WORCESTERandCORNUELLE,1993) indicate, DELGROSSO's 1974 equation (DELGROSSO, 1974) is the most reliable one for"Neptunian" waters (within 0.05 m/s), where the CHEN-MILLEROequation (CHEN and MILLERO,1977; UNESCO, 1983) exhibits systematic deviations of about 0.6 m/s. Expecting a growing scientific interest in quantities like entropy, enthalpy, or chemical potential of seawater, even for practical oceanographic applications such as thermohaline process studies, we felt there was a weakness in the data background of the thermochemical properties used for G93, and so we recomputed dilution heat on a larger data set compared with G93, evaluated freezing points directly based on a most recent review on ice properties (YEN, CI-IENGand FUKUSAKO, 1991), and recomputed the limiting law coefficients based on average seawater composition after MILLERO (1982; MILLEROand SOHN, 1992), using atomic weights 1979
The GIBBS thermodynamicpotential of seawater
251
(HOLDEN, 1980) and especially the standard of the dielectric constant of water (WHITE, 1977; HAAR et al.,1984, 1988). Because it is not a priori evident, how a "molecule of seasalt" is to be understood, we have avoided mole-based units for thermodynamic quantities concerning salinity, rather expressing them by particle numbers and masses of the constituents. As a by-product, the thermodynamic potential of ice has been determined in the vicinity of the freezing point_ To obtain quantities like potential temperature or potential density, one may use a temperatureentropy-inversion polynomial (FEISTEL, 1993). An alternative way is to derive enthalpy H(S,o,p) in terms of its natural variables salinity S, entropy o, and pressure p. Then, its f'trst derivatives are chemical potential, potential temperature, and potential density, its second derivatives yield sound speed, and heat capacity. Details are explained in section 7. In 1990, a new practical definition of temperature ITS-90 was released (BLANKE, 1989; PRESTON-THOMAS, 1990; BETTIN and SPIEWECK, 1990; SAUNDERS, 1990; FOFONOFF, 1992), which is closer to the thermodynamic scale. Many quantities like IOT-4 formulas for seawater properties (UNESCO, 1983) are expressed in the former standard IPTS-68 (WAGEN'BRETHand BLANKE, 1971). In the range of interest here, 0-40°C, both can be converted into each other by (fitted with r.m.s.= 0.1 inK, see Fig. I. 1), t68/°C = 1.0002505 Conucrsion
t90/°C. Foz'mulas
(1.1) -
11'S-90
g
O
IPIS-68
.5
" -.5.
-I
0
t
~ 0.2505
~
IO
tgO ~ 0,2400
20
Temper*aCute
30 tgO
in
40 °C
Fig. 1.1. Conversion between temperature scales from 1968, IPTS-68, and 1990, ITS-90. Their difference & = tg0 - t68 can be approximatedby a linear correction, The recommendationof JPOTS, 8t = 0.24. tg0 (lower curve), remains within an error of 0.1 mK between -5 and +20°C, while the formula ~t = 0.2 5 - t90 (upper curve) is correct within 0.2 mK from -10 to +40°C.
252
R. FEISTELand E. HAGEN
Note that the corresponding conversion factor proposed by the Joint Panel on Oceanographic Tables and Standards JPOTS (SAUNDERS, 1990; UNESCO 1991; FOFONOFF 1992) is only 1.00024. In this paper, all thermodynamic functions are formulated in ITS-90, while all data and expressions used for the computations have been evaluated at the corresponding t68 temperatures using the complete conversion formula (BLANKE, 1989). Supposing that Specific Free Enthalpy (GIBBS potential) G(S,t,p), i.e. the Free Enthalpy of 1kg of seawater divided by lkg, is expressed as a function of its natural variables S,t,p and denoting partial derivatives by subscripts, we summarise the most important quantities briefly here (see e.g. LANDAU and LIFSHITZ, 1966; FOFONOFF, 1962; MAMAYEV, 1975,1976; FEISTEL, 1993): Chemical Potential Entropy Specific Volume Heat Capacity Adiabatic Lapse Rate Thermal Expansion Coeff. IsothermalCompressibility Haline Contraction Coeff. Sound Speed U Enthalpy Internal Energy
IX= G s t~ = -G t V=G CP = -PTGtt F = -Gw/Gtt tx = G t IG K = - ~ /~p 13 = -GsP~G (V/U) 2 P= (~2-Gtt Gpp)/Gtt H = G - T G'te E = H - P Gp
(1.2) (1.3) (1.4) (1.5) (1.6)
(1.7) (1.8) (1.9)
where T = t + T ° = t + 273.15 K
(1.10)
is the absolute temperature and p = p + po = p + 0.101325 MPa
(1.11)
is the absolute pressure (P° is atmospheric pressure, p is sea or gauge pressure). In chapter 7 we shall consider similar expressions for the case that enthalpy H(S,o,p) is used as thermodynamic potential. If we express the variables S = 40 PSU • x2, t = 40°C • y, p = 100MPa. z
(1.12)
by dimensionless quantifies x,y,z, we may write, G(S,t,p) = 1J/kg • g(x,y,z)
(1.13)
g(x,y,z) = (gO + gl • y). x21n(x) + E g[i,j,k] x i yJ zk
ijk Groups of coefficients ofg(x,y,z) can be obtained from different measurements, as the following table indicates (FEISTEL, 1993, modified here):
TheGIBBSthermodynamicpotentialof seawater
1. index (left to right) 2. index (downward inside blocks) 3. index (downward block by block)
253
- order in salinity root - order in temperature - order in pressure
Logarithm Terms g0,g1 are taken from ideal solution theory, Coefficientsg ljk are vanishingfor all j and k, Limiting Law Reference Ig000 State gO10
g200 1 ~ g210
CP(0,t,0) Heat Capacity of Water at 1 atm
g020 g030 g040 g050 g050 g060
g220 g230 g240 g250 g250
g320 g330 g340
g001 g011 g021 g031 g041 g051 g061
g201 g211 g221 g231 g241
g301 g311 g321 g331
g401 g411
V(S,t,0) Specific Volume of Seawater at 1 atm,
U(O,t,p) Sound Speed in Water,
g002 g012 g022 g032 g042 g052
g202 g212 g222 g232 g242
g302 g312 g322
g402 g412
U(S,t,p) Sound Speed in Seawater,
TMD(0,p) Points of Maximum Density of Water
g003 g013 g023 g033 g043
g203 g213 g223 g233 g243
g303 g313 g323 g333
g403
TMD(S,p) Points of Maximum Density of Seawater
g004 g014 g024 g034
g204 g214 'g224 g234
g304
g005 g015
g205 g215 g225
V(0.t,0)
Specific Volume of Water at 1 atm,
g400 g 5 0 0 g 6 0 0 ] g410 g 5 1 0 g 6 1 0
FreezingPoint, DilutionHeat CP(S,t,0) Heat Capacity of Seawater at 1 atm
has been used at one atmosphere (p=0) for water (S=0) and seawater (S>0) in two subsequent fits. Minimizing the expression (eqs. 1.1, 1.5, 1.12) I dy {~2G(0,t,0)/~t2 + CP83(0,t68(t),0)/(T°+t)}2 = Min! o
by 8-point GAUSS integration we have obtained 5 coefficients g[0,2,0] - g[0,6,0], listed in appendix A. 1. The root mean square (r.m.s.) of the fit was 9.9E-3 J/kgK in CP, or 2.4 ppm. Minimizing the expression
I dx I dy {O2G(S,t,0)/Ot2 + CP83(S,t68(t),0)/(T°+t)}2 = Min! 0
0
by two-dimensional 8-point GAUSS integration we have obtained 7 coefficients, g[2,2,0]-g[2,5,0] and g[3,2,0]-g[3,4,0], as listed in appendix A. 1. The r.m.s, of the fit was 1.1E-2 J/kgK in CP, or 2.6 ppm. The experimental error in CP is believed to be 0.5 J/kgK, or 120 ppm (UNESCO, 1983). Except the use of ITS-90, there is no difference in relation to the previous G93 results. High-pressure heat capacities will be computed on the basis of sound speeds and additional data
as described in the following section. The resulting values deviate from the IOT-4 function increasingly with pressure, up to an r.m.s, of about 5 J/kgK, or 1000 ppm, compare Figs 2.1a-c. Heat Capacity
Deuiation
a t p : 0 flPa
• 05
al
*" ,iq
O-
0 I
10
20 PSU 0 PSU
v ~-.
PSU
h lV.
[,4 0
05
25
PSU
30
PSU
35
PSU
40
PSU
-
0 0
-.10
20
20 Temperature
in
30 °C
40
Fig. 2.1. Difference between specific heats of IOT-4 and this paper, a) (above) at atmospheric pressure, b) (righ0 at salinity S = 35 PSU, c) (righ0 at temperature t = 0°C. The experimental reliability is about 0.5 J/kg/K. Only the differences at p=0 have been minimized. Note the different scales of the ordinates.
The GIBBS thermodynamic potential of seawater Heat C a p a c i t y
Deviation
at
S = 35
255
PSU
30"T
100
HPa
X \
20 \
80
NPa
60
MPa
40
MPa
20
14Pa 14Pa
0 I 10. ¢
0
i i
I11
Ib O.
-10
0
I 10
0
30
20
Te~pePatu~e
Heat C a p a c i t y
in
Deviation
40
eC
at t
= 0 °C
15
100
X \
i
\
] .
MPa
......................
C ,M
~
0 C t
5
,It
....................................................... ~................. S
For the recomputation of density we have to adjust the GIBBS potential to three separate quantities simultaneously: (i) densities at atmospheric pressure, (ii) temperatures of maximum density, and (iii) sound speeds. For combining these different sources, the numerical aim is to minimize a mixed mean-square deviation expression, ~{ ~ Wik [Fik - Fk(Si,tl,Pi)]2/Ok2 } = Min!
(3.1) k i It consists of a number of different data groups, denoted by numbers k, like specific volume or sound speed, which we are going to discuss below. Each group enters into the problem with its weight l/Ok2, where o k is the absolute accuracy assumed for this data group. Each group "k" is represented by a number of data values Ftk, labelled by 'T'. These values are either measurements or certain function values as for example from DEL GROSSO's sound speed formula, taken at abscissa triples (Si,ti,Pi). For measured data, these are just the points of measurements; for intervals of a function, these are abscissas of numerical 8-point GAUSS integrations over the interval (with the same number of abscissa points, this integration is about twice as precise as an equidistant summation). Fk is the relevant mathematical expression in G(S,t,p), valid for the group "k", depending on the unknown coefficients, taken at the same abscissas (Si,ti,Pi). Wik is the weight of the i-th data point within the k-th group, normalized to unity, E. Wik = 1, for all k. 1
(3.2)
For measured values, we have taken all data inside one group with equal weights, for functions, Wtk are the weights of the GAUSS integration (ABRAMOWrrZand STEGUN, 1968). There are 15 different groups of data in the problem (3.1), stated for pure water and seawater separately, which we outline briefly now: Seawater density as defined by the International Equation of State (EOS80, UNESCO 1981) has been used as target function at one atmosphere between 0 and 40°C, converted to ITS-90 temperatures. Its pure-water part has been derived from BIGG's formula (BIC,G, 1967) which is the origin of the general technical water standard as well (WAGENBRETHand BLANKE,1971; KEEL, 1975; KELL and WHALLEY, 1975; HAAR et al. 1984, 1988; BETTIN and SPmWECK, 1990). As a result of corrections of density maximum values (UNESCO, 1976, 1981), both differ by typically 10 ppm. Dissolved gases in natural waters may cause deviations of about 4 ppm (BIGNELL,1983) compared to those of air-free standards, and regional deviations in salt composition may have even stronger impacts, up to 50 ppm (BREWERand BRADSHAW, 1975; FOFONOFF, 1985; MILLEROand SOI-IN, 1992) on densities of water samples in oceanographic practice. For the fits (3.1) we have used specific volume of water, V(0,t,0), EOS80 (or IOT-4), normalized by the deviations o k = 3.0E-09 m3/kg (3 ppm), and of seawater, V(S,T,0) with o k = 4.0E-09 m3/kg (4 ppm), corresponding to their estimated experimental error (UNESCO, 1976, 1981).
The GIBBS thermodynamicpotentialof seawater
257
In the neighbourhood of maximum density points, EOS80 is not very reliable (SIEDLERand PETERS, 1986). Temperatures of maximum density (TMD) derived from EOS80 are in good agreement with values measured by CALDWELL(1978)for pure water, but deviate up to 0.3°C for medium salinities. With CALDWELL'Spolynomial (S in PSU, t in °C, p in MPa) TMD = 3.982 -.2229 S -.2004 p (1 + 3.76E-3 S) (1 + 4.02E-3 p)
(3.3)
we have computed table 3.1 for some S and p in the range of CALDWELL'Smeasurements (the measurements themselves are listed in table 5.3). Note that a number of points probably refer to supercooled waters; compare the discussion in section 5. Table 3.1. Difference TMD(EOS80) - TMD(Caldwell) in °C, computed using Eq.(3.3). p/MPa 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
At TMD points, thermal expansion disappears, dWdt = 0, with a slope of dW/dt2= 1.5E-8 m3/ kgKL CALDWELL'STMD data are good within 40 mK, hence we expect IdV/dtl < IdW/dt21 • 40 mK = ak = 6E-10 m3/kgK
(3.4)
over all experimental data points (S~,tl,p~)of CALDWELLin Eq.(3.1). For the thermal expansion coefficient,~ = dln(V)/dt, the uncertainty, (3.4), is equivalent to only 0.6 pprn/K, while originally EOS80 yields about 2 ppm/K for cx at the measured TMDs. (Away from regions of maximum density, o~is typically 100 - 300 ppm/K for water.) High-pressure densities are preferably computed from sound speeds (KELL, 1975; CHENand MILLERO, 1976, 1978). Following the investigations of DUSHOWet al. (1993), the sound speed formula of DEE GROSSO(1974) is the most reliable (within 0.05 m/s) for deep ocean waters with natural combinations of S,t,p, where IOT-4 sound speed U(S,t,p) exhibits systematic deviations of about 0.6 m/s. On the other hand, outside of these windows of "Neptunian waters" in (S,t,p) space, DEL GROSSO's polynomial produces rather useless values. For pure water, some error estimates for sound speed are 0.2 m/s (WILSON, 1959), 0.3 m/s (BARLOWand YAZGAN, 1967, KELLand WHALLEY,1975) and 0.03-0.04 rrds for low pressures (WILLE, 1986). However, because a deviation below 0.02 rrds was achieved in computing sound speed from the GIBBS potential (FEISTEL, 1993), we imposed this value for~k to remain close to the common pure water formulae.
258
R. FEISTELand E. HAGEN
All sound speed formulae have been converted from IFrs-68 to ITS-90. We have combined the "Tables" of DEL GROSSO(1974) with IOT-4 sound speed, for water (table 3.2) and for seawater (table 3.3). DEE GROSSO'S formula uses "kg/cm 2 gauge" as pressure unit, 1 kg/cm 2 gauge Ls 1 kilopond (the weight of 1 kg mass) per cm 2 or 0.980665 bar = 98.0665 kPa (WlLLE, 1986). Table 3.2. Numerical weights for "Tables" of DEL GROSSO (1974) and IOT-4 for water.
Table VII: IOT-4:
S[PSU] 0 0
t[°C] 0-30 0-40
ok[m/s]
p[MPa] 0 0-100
0.02 0.02
Table 3.3. Numerical weights for "Tables" of DEL GROSSO (1974) and IOT-4 for seawater.
All data mentioned so far have been treated together in two runs, one for water and one for seawater. For fresh water, 24 coefficients g[0,j,k], k>0, have been determined as given in table A. 1 of the appendix. The root mean square (r.m.s.) deviations of the fits in the different data groups are, compared to the required accuracies o k (V(S,t,p) specific volume, U(S,t,p) sound speed IOT-4) V(0,t,0): U(0,t,p): Table VII: TMD(0,p):
6k= ok= ok= ok=
3.0E-09, 2.0E-02, 2.0E-02, 4.0E-02,
r.m.s.= r.m.s.= r.m.s.= r.m.s.=
3.7E-10 1.9E-02 8.2E-03 3.4E-02
ma/kg m/s m/s °C
For seawater, 39 coefficients g[i,j,k], i> 1, k>0, have been determined as given in table A. 1. The corresponding error ranges are V(S,t,0): U(S,t,p): Table IV: Table I-III: Table V-VI: TMD(S,p):
The desired compromise could indeed successfully be achieved, for all data groups the average differences appeared to stay inside the anticipated limits, sometimes even significantly below. The only minor exception is maximum density points of salt water, caused by systematic deviations of all data at salinity 20.1 PSU (if one tentatively skips these data, r.m.s, drops down half the value). The differences between the results of this paper and EOS80 densities are shown in Figs 3. la-c, DEE GROSSOsound speed in Figs 3.2a-b, and IOT-4 sound speed in Figs 3.3a-c. Densit N Deviation
a t p = O MPa
10
25 ZO 30
15 < f
5-
i
.O..PSU
IO 35
:5
.5 "i
PSU PSU PSU PSU
. . . . . . . . . . .
PSU PSU
PSU
Q C
'0
O. ~.ao.
es.
...............
¢
IIJ
~
--5
-I0
!
:
30
40
I
0
10
20
Temperature
in
°C
Fig. 3.1. Differences between IOT-4 density (F_,OS80) and this paper, a) (above) at atmospheric pressure, b) (overleaf) at temperature t = 0°C, c) (overleaf) at salinity S = 35 PSU. The experimental reliability is below 10 g/m3, at atmospheric pressure about 4 g/m 3. At low temperatures and pressures the deviations appear to be the result of the maximum density adjustment, and at higher pressures of the modified sound speed.
260
R. PEISTELand E. HAGEN
D e n s i t y D e v i a t i o n a t t = 0 °C
< Z
30'
C
20,
0 £ I
0 v
/ 0
10-
iN IN
HPa
40
MPa
60 80
NPa NPa
O-
100
HPa
-10-
20
10
30
Salinity
in
Density Deviation at S
40
]DSU
=
35 PSU
20-
,< £
10.
C
J
0 NPa 100 NPa
O f, I ~ Iq 0 p,0
O'
c
~
20
HP~
40
NPa
-I0.
-20
1 0
.
.
.
.
, 10
.
.
.
.
u 20
.
.
.
~'eMpe~atu~e
.
.
30 in
°C
.
.
.
n 40
The GIBBS thermodynamic potential of seawater
261
Del Grosso Sound Speed D e v i a t i o n a t t = 0 "C .3-
.2
100
MPa
C .1-
i
o c
I O,
80 60
HPa
40
HPa
20
HPa
HPa
~ -.1 r. Ii
-.2
-.3~ 10
0
20
Salinity
30 in
40
PSU
Del Grosso Sound Speed D e v i a t i o n a t $ = 35 PSU .3-
.2:-
G
MPa i
I
0 C
I ~'
O-
IP - . 1 -
-.2"
-.aJ
. 0
6Q . r . lt ~ 4 ° Mr. lO
~ 20PWa 20
Tel~lpePmtu~e
30
in
40
*C
Fig. 3.2. Differences between the sound speed formala of DEL GROSSO (1974) and this paper, a) at temperature t = 0°C, b) at salinity S = 35 PSU. DEE GROSSO'S polynomial yields meaningful figures, within about 0.05 m/s, only for natural combinations of S,t,p ("Neptunian waters").
262
R. FEaSTELand E. HAO~
SoundSpeedgeulationat p = O flPa .2
35
lqU
30
PSU
.1
0
PSU PSU
20 PSU 5 PSU 15 iO
PSU PSU
-.2
0
10
20
30
Tempemature-Jn
Sound Speed D e u i a t l o n a t 1.5
40
eC
t = 0 "C
.tO0
~lpa
1'
,,8 II1~.
.5!
~
-.5 0
£0
20 Salinity
30 in
40
PSU
Fig. 3.3. Differences between the IOT-4 sound speed formula and this paper, a) at atmospheric pressure, b) at temperature t = 0°C, c) (right) at salinity S = 35 PSU. At p = 0, IOT-4 is claimed to be better than DI~. GROSSO's equation, while for deep ocean water its reliability was found to be only 0.6 ntis.
The GIBBS thermodynamicpotentialof seawater
263
Sound Srm~__lPevlation at $ = 35 PSU : 20
40
I
~0
v
o' ¢
NPa
HPa
HPa
60 100
NPa
80
HPa
NPa
-I
o
-2
-3 + 0
20
20
Te~]pt]~atuz~
30
in
40
*C
4. SOLUTION THFX)RY
In the limit of very small concentrations, statistical physics allows for the exact derivation of thermodynamic properties of electrolyte solutions. PLANCK'S ideal solution theory considers solute particles simply as mass points, which carry an additional electrical charge in case of the limiting laws of DEBYE and HUECKEL.At higher densities of the dissolved particles, effects like finite ion size, hydration shell structure or ionic association gain increasing importance for the macroscopic properties of a solution. Then, even for relatively simple electrolytes like aqueous KC1 solution, theory can merely provide rough approximations, and precise data can only be derived from experiments. On the other hand, a number of quantities are very difficult to determine by measurements for extremely low salt concentrations. In such cases, as for some coUigative properties like mixing heat, theoretical limiting laws may be required for the extrapolation of measured data (LEWIS and RANDALL, 1961). In a previous paper (FEISTEL,1993) we adopted a number of coefficients for ideal solution and limiting laws from the formulae of MILLEROand LEUNG (1976) for osmotic coefficients and dilution enthalpies. Tracing these figures back to the background data of their very first computations is a rather winding road; for better transparency we rederive them here directly from theory. The differences which emerge are the result of recently improved physical data as, for example, for the dielectric constant of water. In the case of seawater, the application of solution theory requires knowledge of how many particles of each kind are dissolved in a given sample of seawater with salinity S. Practical salinity
264
R. FEISTELand E. HAGEN
S is merely defined by electrical conductivity (UNESCO, 1981 ), from which no unique conclusion can be drawn about the chemical composition. Unfortunately at present there is no definition of a seawater standard composition, however, one suitable stoichiometry of an "average seawater" has been given by MILLERO( 1982; MILLEROand SOl-IN, 1992), the corresponding salt components (a) and their mass fractions W(a) are listed in table 4.1. Slightly different proposals have been offered by KENNISH(1994), FOFONOFF(1992), WEICHART(1986), ALEKINand LYAKHIN(1984), and MILLERO(1974). For completeness, we mention here the IUPAC 79 mole mass of water itself, A(H20) = 18.0152 g/mol, and of silver, A(Ag) = 107.8680 g/mol. Table 4.1. Average Seawater Composition. Components and mass fractions from MILLERO (1982), mole fractions recomputed with IUPAC 79 standard mole masses (HOLDEN, 1980). a: salt component, Z: ion charge, A: atomic weight, W: weight fraction, X: mole fraction (a)
We have recomputed the mole fractions X(a) on the basis of Standard Atomic Weights 1979 (HOLDEN, 1980), rounded to 4 decimals, A(a), by W(a)/A(a) X(a) =
(4.1) W(b)/A(b)
Exactly to fulfil the normalization condition Z X(a) = 1 and electro-neutrality Z X(a) Z(a) = 0 with integer mole fractions in ppm (part per million), we have rounded up X(HCO 3) and X(B(OH)4) and down X(H3BO3). Following 1VIILLEROand SOHN(1992), salinity S is related to chlorinity CI by the relation (LEWIS and PERKn~, 1981; KENNISH, 1994) S = 1.80655 PSU. Cl/g
(4.2)
The GIBBS thermodynamic potential of seawater
265
and C1 is defined as the mass of silver needed to precipitate CI and Br in 328.5233 g of seawater. If the saltconcentration is denoted by c (absolute salinity, mass of dissolved matter divided by mass of seawater, or the mass fraction of salts, FOFONOFF, 1985) we obtain CI = 328.5233kg • c . (W(CI)/A(C1) + W(Br)/A(Br)) • A(Ag)
(4.3)
and thus the salinity-weight factor (relating Absolute Salinity to Practical Salinity) q = c/S = 1.00488 g/kgPSU,
(4.4)
(MILLERO and LEUNG, 1976). The question remains, however, to which accuracy Practical Salinity, as defined by electrical conductivity, can still be related to seawater stoichiometry by means of Eq.(4.2), if salinity is very different from 35 PSU, as in the case of dilute solutions or brackish waters. So far, however, there is no cheap and easy-to-use alternative to conductivity-based salinity as a measure for the salt concentration (FOFONOFF, 1985). Now we can express the number of particles N(a) of component (a) in m = lkg of seawater with salinity S by N(a) = N A • W(a)/A(a) • q. S- m
(4.5)
with Avogadro's constant N g = 6.0221341 E+23/mol (SEYFRIED, 1989). For later use we define the average mole mass of salt ions, = Z X(a) • A(a) = 31.4058 g/mol,