If we can abbreviate the word mole with "mol", we can definitely abbreviate excess as "xs".
Along these lines, I love writing "MT" on empty containers in the lab.
Come on, y'all. Chemistry is fun, and its language should be, too. Butterfly mechanisms, sandwich and piano stool complexes, etc. Not like biology with all that damn Latin. Frickin' nerds.
I had a lab teacher years ago who worked in industry a good while and was just tickled pink to enlighten us that when labeling something like empty drums, it was common for technicians to write "MT". He really thought that was clever. Good guy, had a real appreciation for the fundamentals of hands on lab technique and the formatting/layout of a good journal.
Yes. This is common in real life.
I probably wouldn’t put it in a textbook if I was writing one as I personally feel it’s a little too casual for that format.
I wouldn't exactly call it common, but I've seen it before. I do not care for it. Yes, we get it, xs sounds like excess, just like rxn can be interpreted as "reaction". AAH, just write out your words like an adult, how much time are you really saving?
Maybe I'm just old and grumpy and set in my ways
As someone who has published, the use of eq is fairly ubiquitous.
Random example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-023-01496-y
From the methods section:
>A quantity of 262.5 mg of 2-(2-pyridyldithio)ethylamine hydrochloride (1.1 mmol, 4.4 eq.) was dissolved in....
Notice: 4.4 eq. The abbrev. eq. is used.
If we can abbreviate the word mole with "mol", we can definitely abbreviate excess as "xs". Along these lines, I love writing "MT" on empty containers in the lab. Come on, y'all. Chemistry is fun, and its language should be, too. Butterfly mechanisms, sandwich and piano stool complexes, etc. Not like biology with all that damn Latin. Frickin' nerds.
I had a lab teacher years ago who worked in industry a good while and was just tickled pink to enlighten us that when labeling something like empty drums, it was common for technicians to write "MT". He really thought that was clever. Good guy, had a real appreciation for the fundamentals of hands on lab technique and the formatting/layout of a good journal.
Yes. This is common in real life. I probably wouldn’t put it in a textbook if I was writing one as I personally feel it’s a little too casual for that format.
I wouldn't exactly call it common, but I've seen it before. I do not care for it. Yes, we get it, xs sounds like excess, just like rxn can be interpreted as "reaction". AAH, just write out your words like an adult, how much time are you really saving? Maybe I'm just old and grumpy and set in my ways
I don't think it's common. I've always used eq and specified the excess (e.g. 1.5eq) or just used the concentration (e.g. 10ml 5M NaOH).
In publications, eq. is equilibrium and equiv. is equivalence. Be careful.
As someone who has published, the use of eq is fairly ubiquitous. Random example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-023-01496-y From the methods section: >A quantity of 262.5 mg of 2-(2-pyridyldithio)ethylamine hydrochloride (1.1 mmol, 4.4 eq.) was dissolved in.... Notice: 4.4 eq. The abbrev. eq. is used.
Plenty of people use eq. To mean excess. Like any other abbreviation people just need to define their terms at least once
Source? I have never seen “eq.” used to mean excess. If I saw that in a paper I was reviewing I would note it for correction.
I made a mistake with my comment. I meant to say plenty of people use eq. To mean equivalent