No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class
of material in various the nutrient cycles.
DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate
Each of these reflect the primary bio-material cycles on
Earth. Carbon, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen. There are others,
such as Silicon.
The rule is simple. We have Dissolved/Particulate,
Organic/Inorganic, and the nutrient cycle we're talking
about. We use these terms because each class requires
certain forms of remediataion. One doesn't, even remotely,
treat DIN the same way as POP.
Here's some scientific lit. where the term(s) are used
correctly...
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/solas/summerschool/handouts/LC2.pdf
http://jacquet.stephan.free.fr/engel_ame_2004.pdf
*****************************
> Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds. :)
>
> Marc
> No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class of
> material in various the nutrient cycles.
>
> DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
> DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
> DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
> DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
> DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
These three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
DOM - Dissolved Organic Matter
Which would then be a substantially better term to use than "Dissolved
Organic Compounds" which, as is the topic of discussion, collides with
"Dissolved Organic Carbon".
> POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
> PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
> POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate
While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
POM - Particulate Organic Matter
I can certainly shift to use these terms from the larger scientific
discussion in my own language on aquariums.
One question, are phytoplankton (algae, bacterial agglomerates, etc.)
part of POM or are POC, PON, and POP limited to particles that are
nonliving? Seems like it would be useless to attempt to divide them
out, so I may have just answered my question...
Regards,
Ross
-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Bill Kirkpatrick - 07 Mar 2004 21:19 GMT
> While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
> POM - Particulate Organic Matter
Sure, but wouldn't it be kind of limiting if we just used
the term "Color" (Matter/Compounds) to describe all various
forms of "Red"(DOC), "Orange"(POC), "Yellow"(DIN), etc.?
Of course, if you don't understand the subject or it is not
applicable to you (like a total color blind), then the broad
term is all you need.
In both aquaria, and waste water treatment, it would seem we
surely can't say these terms are inapplicable. We use
various filters/media/methods, each to specifically address
the various classes of pollutants, and their makeup components.
If you take it to the extreme, why not just say there is
"junk", or "pollution", in our tanks. Not very scientific
sounding, perhaps, but if "we" should use DOC in the way you
suggest, then why not use a simpler and less confusing word
for the stuff?