Talk:Abundance of elements in Earth's crust/Archive 1

Archive 1

Values in last column erroneous

Most of values in last column is only half of real ones (comparing them with those from http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/myb/ ), I think someone made mistake and computed 1 ton = 1000 lbs instead of 1 ton = 2000 lbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.65.250 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

in the references section: Minerals yearbook 2009, USGS Volume I. Metals and Minerals.

I did not try the others! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.132.79 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

% in volume/amount

Are there any sources that give the % compositions in terms of volume/amount of atoms rather than by weight? It'd be a useful metric rather than simply five sources repeating the same information. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We could add it-- at least for atom % or mole % (volumes in solids aren't very useful). BTW, the 5 sources are not "repeating" info, but giving independent numbers, so one can scan across and get some idea of how well the figure is known. Remember this is honest grungy data with errors, nor received scripture from On High. SBHarris 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No need for THREE variations

This table fails to include the "rank" number, but wastes space by listing three different variations of the data. The three should be combined or simply choose one for one list.Ryoung122 15:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Q: what about abundance in ocean sea water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.40.195 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

O and Si have particle abundance.. over 1 million in parts per million?

Bullshit alert! so more than 100% of the earths particles are O, and more than 100% are also Si? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.210 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In the graph on the right (vertical axis shows ppm, and O and Si, are above 10^6,... per 10^6 so both over 100% of earths particles) source of the graph could clarify more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.210 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Also, the table lists approx 460 000 ppm, so it should be slightly slightly under 10^6 certainly not above, fixing O may leave rest unfixed... fixing rest may corrupt them if they were positioned correctly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.210 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The graph shows "relative" information to Silicon, not "absolute" ppm values. That's the reason only Oxigen is above 10^6, and Silicon is exactly 10^6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.252.210 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

sort functionality

Numbers are sorted as "text", because of the format used (with commas every 10^3). Is it possible to update the list with "numeric" information? (i.e. 53,700 >>> 53700) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.252.210 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Numbers were sorted as "text" because some cells contained references, I've moved references out of number cells, now everything is sorted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The column "Production" in the table is misleading and have to be split in two columns: Production of pure element, and Production of minerals or compounds containing the element.

As it is now the "Production" lists both "apples" and "oranges". Note # 6 tries to define the data, but is itself ambiguous. It states that "All production numbers are at mines", but does not say if those numbers are tonnes of mined ores (concentrates), or tonnes of element, contained in the mined ores. Some elements are present in many commodities, and giving numbers for their production as commodities would be difficult and ambiguous: For instance the production of Na and Cl is given as NaCl, ignoring such important commodities as NaHCO3, Na2CO3 and HCl, NaOCl, CaCl2, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyanachk (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Table's a mess

You have some spaces blanked, others in % of varying digits, and others in ppm. The result is that it's impossible to order the tables. Pick a unit and stick with it. (e.g. 50% in ppm is 500000. 500000 ppm in % is 50.) -LlywelynII (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there any good reason to have five columns of identical information? Why not list the sources and give high and low estimates (in one or two columns) for each element? -LlywelynII (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it sucks. You can't order it. Makes the table pointless. Dqeswn (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This table is outright ridiculous. It doesn't even follow the very good chart posted on the top right part of the article (the scanned document ), although the chart is extremely simple to read: abundance on the y axis and atomic number on the x axis, can't be simpler even for those who missed school. Most values in the wiki table are outdated by the way . 82.240.163.245 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean outdated? It's not that the Earth composition changes every 10 years, there is just variation from source to source. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen is more abundant than nitrogen though tnitrogen occupies 70% of the earth's atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.94.99 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources for this table are inadequate, as they themselves don't provide sources. I will try and update this table with a peer-reviewed source (i.e. Rudnick and Gao, 2003, Treatise on Geochemistry) that is the standard in the geologic community. - Scootalmighty (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Radon?

Radon is also found in the crust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.49.25 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not really part of the crust, though, which comprises solid material by definition. All the elements listed are incorporated into minerals of some kind; note that none of the noble gases appear, despite the fact that several of them, including radon, are constantly being produced underground.—Odysseus1479 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Though, list of elements has abundance for all of the noble gases. Most common is argon with 3.5 ppm and least common radon with 4×10⁻¹³ ppm. Helium and neon are listed with 0.008 and 0.005, and would be above of some in this list, for example platinum & gold. 82.141.95.42 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You will find all six noble gases in igneous rocks trapped in occlusions. However, the crust is supposed to be solid, so arguably they do not count as they do not form solid compounds without coercion, usually of a rather cryogenic nature. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

carbon

Carbon is listed with the note "sum of carbon content of coal, crude oil and natural gas." Does this mean that the estimates of carbon content in the earth's crust is based *solely* on estimates of fossil fuel reserves? Are rocks containing calcium carbonate not included? And I see a range of estimates of 200 to 1800...Is there really that much uncertainty? -Helvetica (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That note is a leftover from an unsourced figure for production, not abundance, that was removed (not being included in the present source). I will delete it.—Odysseus1479 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is a problem with carbon abundance as several others sources tell that Calcium Carbonate CaCO3 is 4% of Earth Crust meaning that C is a least 4,800 ppm of the crust. (C is 12% of the mass of CaCO3).

http://www.ima-europe.eu/about-industrial-minerals/industrial-minerals-ima-europe/calcium-carbonate

http://www.calcium-carbonate.org.uk/calcium-carbonate.asp

http://omya-public.sharepoint.com/calciumcarbonate-dolomite

Ianniss (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Someone is undoing my edits, without explaining why. They should give a reason, either in an edit summary, or here, or both. They should refer to the manual of style when doing so and explain why they don't feel the need to follow its guidelines. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOS advises us to bold the article title in the lede. You remove that without explanation. You also remove a note on the accuracy of the estimation, again without explanation and without giving an alternative. Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLDAVOID. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet more disruptive editing! This is getting ridiculous. User:Vsmith undid my edit, with the summary "Seems the note re:" Order of magnitude" is important". Firstly what is it that is so important, that is not covered by the word "estimated"? And secondly why did they also restore a bolded link when the manual of style says don't do that? Seems to me that neither Materialscientist nor Vsmith read the text that was in place after my edit. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... looking at the recent history of the article - seems we do have an edit warrior at work w/ six reverts in the past couple of days. And calling those who disagree "disruptive", yup - quite ridiculous. :) Vsmith (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded the brief lead to the tabulated data. Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What an unpleasant person you seem to be. I called you disruptive because you were being disruptive. Or you thought that contravening guidelines and not bothering to engage in discussions about it was productive? 128.40.9.164 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Continually reverting to your preferred version of an article is also disruptive. Yes, it's frustrating when other editors don't justify their reverts, but that's no excuse for edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Everyone, you're attracting uninvolved admin attention. Everyone involved would be blockable for edit warring without sufficient discussion, so please stop now. Howsabout we get a proposed paragraph in the talk page here and hash out issues with it here and then everyone agrees and someone makes that the live article contents. Consensus, people. Talk it out here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Annual production rates

Many of these numbers are WAY off. e.g. Hf - listed here as 339,000 t/year is really closer to 90 t/year. Y - listed here as 400 t / year is closer to 8,000 t / year. Where did these production numbers come from?? Cornthwaite (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where the production numbers came from. If you find better world productions in any case, with a cite, feel perfectly free (as in the above two cases) to put in your better numbers. We might need a cite for each value, ultimately. I know many of the chem element articles give world production values, but I haven't crosschecked any of that to this article. So feel free to change anything that looks funny, if you have a source. You won't do any damage, and can only help. SBHarris 00:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blanked the last column, went through the USGS files [1] and re-entered the values. Most of them are close (just updated because I took the 2011 data). Some were in error, as noted by Cornthwaite. Many are not listed by USGS; they were taken from I don't know where; they remain blanked, but we can add them using individual sources from elements articles. For many elements data are ambiguous. Take iron - it is mined as ore, that is oxides, and nearly all of it is converted into the metal. However, this is not so for, say, Si, Al, Ti, group-1,2,17 elements, etc. They are mined as compounds and there are separate values and uses for compounds and elements. Also, many major producers do not disclose their data (to USGS or elsewhere). Thus most of these values are just a rough guide, and I wonder if they are worth keeping. Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Perhaps we need two columns-- one for compound production and one for element production. Often the differences are gigantic-- silicon compound "production" is so high that I hardly think it can be estimated, as every time we use rock or gravel for anything, we're "producing" silicon compounds. I'm not even sure that direct use of unpurified stuff should count as "production". It's a problem. SBHarris 01:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - good work. The problem with the USGS is that they are held up as the be-all and end-all for sourcing on info like this, when the reality is that more often than not they are shooting in the dark. Alas, there aren't really any better sources of info either... Cornthwaite (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, nice work. But group-2 elements are short-changed in this list, particularly Mg and Ca. Ca dwarfs Mg but it's hard to get numbers, though there are good USGS numbers for Mg compounds, 8.5M tonnes in 2018 - much larger than metal production, I'll make the change in a moment. That includes Mg compounds used in metal production, so please don't double count. Hazelsct (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The table says 3100 t/y for gold, where the graph in gold looks like about 2600 t/y. Gah4 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed rankings

I removed the rankings. The sources only agreed on the top 5, and any reader can count that high. I thought to replace the sources w s.t. more recent, but the CRC 97 (2016 ed.) uses sources dating from 1989, 1988 and 1969, so I didn't bother. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Error in boron and tungsten values from Barbalace?

The reported abundances of tungsten and boron sourced from the Barbalace website (column 3 as of this writing) are roughly 100 times higher than the abundances of these same elements given by every other source. In the case of tungsten, its rank (left column) was based on the Barbalace data and appears to be far too high. I have changed the rank of tungsten in the table to match the consensus value from other sources. However, we should perhaps review whether the Barbalace data should be included for these elements, or if it is a suitable source at all. Scythe33 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. This raised for me the question of whether Wikipedia should consider Kenneth Barbalace as a RS at least for this information. On the one hand he's obviously put a huge amount of work into his website, which during 1996-2002 earned some 28 awards listed here. On the other, I was unable to find any independent judgments of his reliability as an authority on scientific matters; on the contrary his wildly different numbers seem like evidence of his unreliability. His credentials as an authority on physical data are nonexistent: he lists his degree as "AAS Fire Science, Hazardous Materials Control. from the University of Alaska Fairbanks", and according to Google Scholar his only cited publications are pages from his website.

Since his column in this table seems to be severely skewing some averages for no good reason, I propose simply deleting the column. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolute numbers for mass

I think this article would be better if someone could add the mass of the Earth's crust, and/or mass of each element. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The mass of the Earth's crust is about 1% of the mass of the Earth. I could give than in kg, but would it help? You can go down and multiply by %'s, but we only know them for the top of the crust, so that doesn't help either. And gives ridiculously large numbers however you do it, which are beyond any human scale. So again, I think the info is in the best form as it is. SBHarris 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The area of the surface is 5.1 × 10¹⁴ m². The continental crust (30% of the surface) averages some 50 km in depth while the oceanic crust averages around 10 km in depth. The average depth of the crust is therefore 0.3*50 + 0.7*10 = 22 km for a total crust volume of around 10¹⁹ m³. Using 3000 kg/m³ as its approximate density gives a crust mass of around 3 × 10²² kg. This is close to 0.5% of the mass of the Earth. (I wanted this mass to determine the mass of CO2 if all the carbon in the crust were burnt. The highest abundance listed for carbon is 1800 ppm or about 5 × 10¹⁹ kg. If burnt to CO2 that would come to nearly 2 × 10²⁰ kg. This is about 40 times the mass of Earth's atmosphere, 5.1 × 10¹⁸ kg. Hence if all the carbon in the crust were burnt to CO2 the resulting atmospheric pressure would be about 40 atmospheres. On Venus it is 90 atmospheres.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)