NEVER rely on a specification value found on an SDS (Safety Data Sheet). Manufacturers always make these values as vague as possible, to deter copycats. SDS’ were mandated as SAFETY documents, and they serve that purpose well. When more specific data is needed, it’s available from the mfr’s lab.
Just keep the lid on tight and you should be fine for years. As I’m sure you know, it evaporates fast. However it’s also very hygroscopic, meaning it likes to pull moisture from the air. Probably won’t damage any coins, but the more pure, the better.
Aw, man. Now I'm once again mourning the quarter-bottle of reagent-grade nitric acid that I flushed down the drain when packing up my chem stuff for storage. On the plus side, that drain was really clean afterward.
Uh huh. If I can't use it in the lab or in/on my body, it doesn't go on my coins. I don't personally like to use acetone - it is too unpredictable.
This is a weaker formulation than what I use. I looked. Mine methylene chloride and methanol that’s it. It’s nasty stuff
What about nail polish remover which says: "pure acetone" and lists only acetone as ingredient. On the other hand the can from the HW store only says "acetone cleaner", no ingredients listed. Which one should I go with? Edited to add pics:
Not sure what you're trying to get at here, unless it's "drowning", or "death from electrolyte imbalance from guzzling too much water", or "scalded to death by steam", or "conked on the head by a falling iceberg" -- none of which have much to do with "purity".
It's conceivable that there's some brand of nail polish remover that's just pure acetone, but I'd be a bit surprised. It's also possible that something sold as "acetone" in a HW store would have other ingredients that are harmful, but again, it seems unlikely.
I mean that the word "pure" is used loosely in the commercial world and Pure water, that is. Stripping water down to an ultrapure state makes it unfit for human consumption
Now I have even less idea what you mean. How in the world would pure water be unfit for human consumption? Without dissolved air or minerals, it might not taste like what you'd expect, but it can't be harmful in any way that ordinary water isn't.
It is, pure water in every sense of the definition is deficient and hungry for electrons and will take them from your body at any opportunity. http://isciencemag.co.uk/features/fact-of-the-day-1/
Lab grade water, sound familiar? Lab grade acetone? The word pure is used so commonly that it requires an adjective to describe its true definition.... ULTRA. I also don't like the loose term literally, which is so common and annoying these days.
That... is complete, 100% garbage. Yes, tonicity is a thing. It's the reason you use saline, not pure water, to wash wounds or eyes. It's the reason why drinking sea water will kill you. Pure water absolutely will not harm you, any more than tap water will. If you drink either to excess, it can upset your electrolyte balance -- but there's no threshold of "purity" beyond which water suddenly becomes more dangerous. The notion that water "too pure" is somehow dangerous is absolutely false. It shows a basic misunderstanding of tonicity and the behavior of ions. I hope the "postgraduate students" that edited and published that article weren't studying biology or chemistry. If they were, I hope their professors saw the article, and took the opportunity to straighten them out. I'm sorry that the article sucked you in, and sent you off with this misconception. I see from the comments that I'm not the only one who's horrified by it. Edit: @Kentucky @Oldhoopster @desertgem check my work here?
There are many other resources which make this statement??? Scientific American... Salty saliva bathes your tongue, drenching every one of your thousands of taste buds. It protects you from nasty bacteria, moistens your food, helps you pronounce the word “stalactite” and even lets you know when you might be drinking something bad for you. Like water. Pure water, that is. Stripping water down to an ultrapure state makes it unfit for human consumption.
Wow -- that's super disappointing to see from SA. When did it appear? The source you linked previously was from 2011. It's not like scientific consensus on the topic would have changed over a decade or so, but this might be one bolus of misinformation that took in a lot of people before it got tamped down. Or, of course, I could be wrong. But in this particular case, I'm really, really confident that I'm not. Edit: here's a summary that looks accurate to me: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317698#Is-distilled-water-safe-to-drink The bottom line is that if you're fasting, and drinking only distilled water, you can run into electrolyte problems more quickly than you would with mineral-bearing water. For people who eat, though, drinking distilled or otherwise super-purified water shouldn't make a significant difference. Saying it's "unfit for human consumption" is grossly misleading. Edit again: I see your SciAm reference. It's a "guest blog". Beware: SciAm clearly doesn't vet these with the same rigor they use for articles.
But that's referring to distilled water. The difference is the Ultra Pure H2+O2 is created in a laboratory and can not occur naturally. Instead of supplying minerals to the body it leaches minerals from cells. Thats my dumbed down version of what I've been led to believe anyway.
