Saved me writing a much less exhaustive comment.

Oh fuc.. I hate plastics in fresh water pipes and some part's got touch with my drinking water. Some lead isn't even worse thing in different plastic types.

@Muonium1 When PVC is marked as "food safe" is that meant to indicate that a different catalyst has been used? A quick Google finds there was a kerfuffle over the construction of Vermont sugar houses in 2021 due to a leeching issue from non-food-grade PVC pipe. Not many people drink from lead crystal glassware anymore, but plastic is everywhere [citation needed]. I'm a computer engineer with no materials knowledge, but I assume that the migration of lead to the barrier layer could be faster in materials other than glass, meaning the rinsing process Ben described may not be adequate protection.

Thanks for this, I have been wondering why I detect chromium from my RO produced water and i could not figure it out. It is from all the PE filter housing and hoses. Leaching the chromium catalyst in to the water. It is very slight amount barely detected on water measuring strips. And it is the only contaminant I can find in the water. It is still WAY purer than the tap water though.

@@cajampa 👍🏻👍🏻

I would really like to see this repeated for bright green fluorescent uranium glass.

By my estimation chatgpt gets it right most of the time. Seeing the chatgpt got it wrong videos are self selecting.

@@WeBeGood06 chatgpt regularly gets huge amounts of information wrong and bullshits about knowing things it doesn't know CONSTANTLY. It's completely untrustworthy and little more than a toy for amusement that can *occasionally* provide a useful insight about something. Ask it about detailed topics you are already an expert on, then ask it for citations in the literature to support its claims. It will simply fabricate everything from whole cloth. See the hilariously stupid Mata V. Avianca case from a month ago. The number of people treating it like a search engine is astounding. It's a text pattern generator; it hallucinates, it lies, it confabulates.

@AppliedScience, what version of ChatGPT, was this 3.5 or 4?

​@@WeBeGood06It has categories it does great in, and others it fails in. It does best with thoroughly documentated topics that have objective and numerical truth, which makes the source data very consistent. It's efficacy drops a lot when you give it softer science

top 3? what are the other two then? in my world it's literally the best technical channel out there.

@@Alexander_Sannikov Nighthawkinlight is really,really good too, would be my top 3 choice

​@@Alexander_SannikovTech ingredients, Nile Red, Alpha Phoenix, Breaking taps, Practical Engineering, Nile Red, Electroboom... the list is long.

As a grey-haired Chemist, I especially enjoyed seeing him use + explain the UV/VIS spectrometer that fits in the palm of your hand (the LR1). Amazingly powerful UV/VIS capability for only a fraction of the cost $$$ compared to “professional” lab equipment used at US EPA and FDA laboratories like Perkin-Elmer and Agilent. Now I know what I want for my birthday present, an LR1 👍

@@Dinnye01while i've been subscribed to all of your listed channels and while tech ingredients does occasionally get sort of close, in my opinion this channel is just miles ahead of every other one. In terms of the host's expertise level, video subjects and the sheer amount of unique stuff they have published.

the dishwasher might make it safer because the rinse aid leaves behind a plastic coating- that is the haze that ruins glasses in the dishwasher after a time

People still use dishwashers? Is this 1995?

​@@LanceBeckman your comment makes no sense: dishwashers have only gotten increasinly energy efficient and better at cleaning difficult to clean stuff. It's like saying "Glasses? People still use glasses? What is this, the 1400s?"

@@LanceBeckman : What do you use? Hands? Is this the ancient era? Can you get your hand washing water to an equal heat?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Was wondering how long term use would change it too.

You must be new here... All Ben videos are perfectly narrated.

@combcomclrlsr The extraction and narration remind me of @JamesHoffman 's coffee videos.

Absolutely!

I love this channel. He thinks about just about every atom of what's going on.

Everything is fascinating! Studied physics which included also some chamical analysis.

That's a great point, there should be no acetic acid in wine unless it has turned. The root Latin words in "vinegar" are Vin = Wine and Eger = sour . Tartaric, malic, citric, and succinic are the primary acids found in wine, this is also why total acidity is more valuable than pH for testing wines acidity. Also as mentioned at the end of the video many other solvents may be drunk from these glasses which may pull out more or less lead.

Or phosphoric acid, being that kids and other non-alcoholics are going to be drinking soda out of these leaded goblets at the china-and-crystal fancy occasions.

I'm curious, I would think that the solvent would not matter much. My rationale is the lead extraction is inhibited by the diffusion through the glass, not the thermodynamics of dissolving.

@@Kycilak My bet is it depends on if the glass has been pre-extracted or not. If it has, likely no difference. If it hasn't then that first drink is going to have way more lead.

Doesn't the wine making also produce the tartaric acid or at least the cream of tartar?

This depends on the glass aswell, normal sodium glass tends to leach more impurities than borosilikat glass

Why not pure Sapphire? I have a Graphics tablet where the entire surface is a huge sapphire panel. It's probably the only scratch resistant thing I have.

@@AmstradExin Most likely a shaping constraint, as all synthetic sapphire applications I am aware of can be made and cut from flat sheets (screens, camera lenses etc)

@@timkurz6086 Borosilicate glass is less likely to leach impurities, but plastic containers or even soda-lime glass are specifically preferrable for boron analysis because it does not leach boron.

@@fatiheneskuru4332 seems logical to me 😂 however i have to admit ive never done boron analysis to this day nor have i heard someone doing that to encounter such a problem!

I've found myself liking Nile Red's videos less and less over recent years. IMO he's clearly appealing to a more casual viewer, and the content feels a little "dumbed down" compared to his older stuff

@@user-nc3fj9yd2c Yup going for a bigger audience

Nilered is just a kid making memes and throwing tantrums.

@@quarteratom lol tantrums? When did he do that?

@@iteerrex8166 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qq2hibCTprfMcqc.htmlm6s For example.

I prefer firkins per gloop, but to each his own.

This.

This assumes that the result is a linear mixture of the standards, which may not be the case. Maybe the literature has something to say, but in the absence of that, you'd have to make some samples which were known mixtures of metals to validate the method.

@@bob2859good point

@@bob2859 The data at 22:14 shows that the absorbance for lead is quite linear until you reach saturation. It should definitely be linear in the limit of low concentration.

The idea with the dithizone is to always have an excess of unreacted dithizone, so that the reactions are never starved for it and all of the metal reacts. When all of the metal reacts, the absorbance of the reacted dithizone is directly proportional to the concentration of the metal. So long as each different metal has a different absorbance spectrum when reacted with dithizone, yes, it's possible to measure the concentrations independently in the combined solution. Absorbance spectra add linearly at each wavelength and the contributing spectral curve shapes are known, so you only need a linear transformation to separate them and get the concentration of each metal.

Even he was like .5% acetic acid. It's just natural to think that way.

It seems fine for comparisons, like 300ppb lead vs 200 ppb lead, but it’s definitely not good for specifications, because it’s vague. By volume? By mass? Certain units? This doesn’t matter as much when there’s another reference point, but is extremely important for other purposes

In the same spirit, hand wash it with the abrasive part of a kitchen sponge and hot water

Have you tested this yourself? what wavelengths? I regularly see the ice blue glow of certain pieces of glass with a UVA flashlight at 365nm but I don't know for sure if it's lead, or cerium, or something else.

All machined brass. They call it "free turning" 12 percent is pretty common.

​@@napalmholocaust9093while I don't know exactly what alloy you're referring to, in my experience (as a machinist) the most common free machining brass is ASTM C360, which has an allowable lead content of 3-4%. There are also other "eco brass" alloys available that have near zero lead content, specifically for use in high volume production of plumbing parts and fittings that will come into contact with drinking water.

I agree. I try not to purposefully expose myself to excess lead knowing that I'm probably exposed to it anyway through daily activities. A good goal in life is to keep lead in your bones as low as possible. 😁

Yes. My thoughts exactly.

Or do a test running the glass to through a dishwasher, or the suggested soak for a few days.

@@ch94086 Or maybe scratch it with a spoon to simulate stirring a drink. If glass with lead content is softer it might be easier to scratch some of it off.

@@ch94086 Nice, soak the dishwasher in lead particles.

@@ch94086coming from a country that used to use crystal like it was going out of fashion, putting it into a dishwasher makes the glass cloudy.

This is great advice for anyone who uses a lead crystal decanter. Or it's an excuse to drink the contents straight away 😁

The issue is that he used an acidic extraction liquid. The problem is that moast soaps especially for dishwashers are basic. Basic solutios tend to attac glass much more. So every time you put this stuff in the dishwasher you remove a small amount of glass wich could free more lead. So using citric acid is not very realistic I think. Still like always it is a super cool video.

@@electricalychalanged4911 You wouldn't want to put lead crystal into the dishwasher anyway. Even a small amount of surface clouding will ruin the visual effect it is used for...

@@electricalychalanged4911 I thought that he said "acetic", like vinegar. Would you or somebody confirm whether or not vinegar would work, and whether or not it would damage the glass?

​@@eugenetswong Vinegar is a week acid pH 4,7. Glass or SiO2 does not react at this pH. But many if not most metal oxides do, forming mostly soluble salts. That goes for lead oxides too. in the concrete case the accessible lead oxide on the surface of the Glass would be dissolved by Vinegar (and most beverages es they tend to be acidic) over time. But after putting anything basic in there pH 8 or higher (like many soaps or cleaning agents, but also some herbal tees and vegetable juices) a very thin layer of glass can be removed which would expose more lead oxide. My argument is that removing the Lead by long exposition to week acids will not make the lead glass safe to use for food in most use cases I think. So can it work? Yes, if no basic stuff touches the glass afterward . Will it damamge the glass? Defiantely not.

Last cordless drill I bought new came with a charger. The charger cord does have a lead warning. It is still being shipped in (ryobi). The vinyl insulated lunch totes are notorious and used mostly by children. Don't know if those are still around but I would think so. Appently the amount of lead used shot-up in the past 10 years due to re-regulation.

**Apparently 😃

Yeah, people talk about plastic (etc) as if it’s the plastic itself that’s the only problem, but often it’s the additives and there’s little control over what is being used as additives. Or maybe it’s something made of steel, that should be safe, but what if it’s steel with a significant amount of lead in it, and so on.

I'm speculating but I would love to know if polymerisation catalyst could have been the problem. I'm sure that there is some catalyst in final product, but I have no idea if it is in high enough amount and if it would even leach in solution.

​​@@napalmholocaust9093That was a California warning label because the solder might have contained lead. Long standing joke is "Everything in California causes cancer, especially California." Generally anything imported through California gets one of those tags slapped on them due to California law.

If they're independent it should be pretty accurate right? But what about the unreacted values I this those are linearly dependant with every metal, or are they not? (Just learning linalg so this may be way off the mark lol)

@@xhivo97 I don't know, there were thoughts as to how these things might interact, but if we can find the ratios of bound values, then we can probably do a correlation to total unbound values. It would be work to calibrate, but if it isn't linear, we should be able to train a ML model.

I was thinking something similar, but different: instead of calibrating against ultrapure water, could the full spectrum functional fit method be used against tap water as a baseline, and just measure lead increases against that baseline?

@@aaronbotsis7218 The problem with tap water is that it tends to be inconsistent. So you would have calibrate the baseline each time you take water fron the tap.

Interesting. Would love to have a discussion with you about calibration! I've recently ordered some alcohol sensors (the ubiquitous MQ-3) and I'm curious how to come up with some sort of actual measurement. How do the machines take into account people with different heights and weights? Or is that not considered at all, and it just looks at exactly how much alcohol is in the breath sample. It seems odd to me because different BAC levels show completely different levels of impairment and intoxication in different people -- but at the same time, how can you design a law for e.g. DUI without having some sort of non-subjective standard? It seems like a complex thing to do well.

@@AureliusR Impairment isn't taken into account by many (all?) legal systems, I would say because it's too difficult to measure. Instead alcohol breath or blood concentration limits are set. In New Zealand they are 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, or more than 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood which give a clear pass/fail result. Regarding calibrating an MQ3 presumably you'd want to generate a range of standard alcohol / air concentrations. More difficult than liquid solutions so have fun.

Serious scientists all have the following tools: XRF Gun, Mass spectrometer, Electron microscope, Oscilloscope, Series of acids, pure forms of as many elements as possible, solder gun, wires, protective eyewear, gloves, lab coats, UV light, IR thermal camera, Series of high speed cameras for various wavelengths, vacuum pumps, vacuum chambers, CNC machines, glass making equipment, windowed high pressure metal pipes that fit together, table top electric kilns in programmable and regular forms, several computers, ultrasonic microphones, various freezers, solutions and solvents (include liquid nitrogen in there) and centrifuges. Those all cost hundreds of thousands of dollars total. Most scientists aren't well off but are also interested in MRI machines, DNA decoders, super computers and just sort of not even think about owning but competing for time on orbitting telescopes. 😄 Point is to really know what's going on with most questions. You don't often wonder, "does this have too much lead in it?" but if you did someone with the tools could answer that, like on this channel. 😊 A fun one today that's asked a lot but rarely meaningfully answered is, "is this computer secure?" Good luck answering that without going over billions of lines of code and looking through hardware with electron microscopes. Some chips come with hardware vulnerabilities built in you can only see by decapsulating them. Software you must test with supercomputers for vulnerabilities not discovered yet. It takes a lab to answer such a simple question because there is a multi-billion dollar industry built to make them not secure. Great channel.

You could do that, but it's better to treat the concentrations of unreacted dithizone and dithizone reacted with lead as independent. That's because, as Ben mentioned, you don't know how much residual unreacted dithizone you'll have in the end. It depends on the starting concentration and on how much of it reacts. The concentration of reacted dithizone is what you ultimately care about, and you'd like to measure that without interference from the the concentration of unreacted dithizone. A ratio won't accomplish that. But it is enough to sample the absorbance spectrum at just two wavelengths. Since you know the shapes of the unreacted and reacted absorbance spectra and they add linearly at each wavelength to create the observed absorbance spectrum of the combined solution, it's just a linear transformation to separate them.

It could be as simple as a thin plastic coating on the inside of the container.

@@mattsyme87 I’m honestly intrigued.

@@mattsyme87 I've seen some producers put a thin layer of ordinary (non-leaded) glass on the inside.

@@somedumbguy0 wow. How do they do that? Is it part of the initial manufacturing process or is it done after its already moulded?

@@mattsyme87 I don't know, but I would guess after molding. I think the good stuff is still cut after molding. There is a lot of fine manipulation that can be done with glass. Glass art is really cool.

I don't see this as being a problem with PPM itself as it is with just being unclear about what you're measuring. PPM is a perfectly fine unit for expressing ratios of numerical quantitiies (that have the same unit, obviously mg/L is not ppm in the first place), but a substance is not a numerical quantity. Using PPM for a concentration without specifying whether it's by volume/mass/mol is like asking for "50 water" without specifying a unit :P

Where ppm and ppb gets me is in metrology. Just state the uncertainty in the units measured, it's needlessly confusing. 10 ppm means less than +/- 10 μg

@@HBomb157 They mean completely different things, 10 ppm is a relative error, ±10 μg is an absolute error

@@MatthijsvanDuin both are usually specific for a full scale range so effectively the same. But you right. Still don't like it.

Do they use lead in vacuum tubes?

@@Eduardo_Espinoza No. Lead has a high vapor pressure so it must not be used. Mercury was used in special purpose tubes but no longer. Solid state devices have almost entirely replaced vacuum tubes.

@@glasslinger might make good shot glasses in the end :) Tnx your time !

Thank you for your time* )

мицеллы коллоидных растворов весьма крупны, поэтому обратный осмос действительно должен быть эффективен против солей свинца.

He's a hero character in the MMORPG called life.

Imagine that Valve let people like him (and others) go because they chose to focus on hosting games...

@@aserta bussiness wise that was the right thing to do

It'd probably be fine either way, but the general advice is to use it to serve alcohol rather than store alcohol.

You're making the very big assumption that all the metal ions react with dithizone independently. There's no guarantee that a solution of multiple metal ions will produce a color that is a linear combination of the individual spectra for the metals.

@@tissuepaper9962 That is indeed the hypothesis. He was already working with it. I'm curious to see how far it holds.

It looks like he used Google Sheets to graph his results. This is the first time that I have heard of the viridis colour scale. Could it be implemented with GSheets?

And whiskeys. I kept whiskey in mine, at least one bottle, before putting the decanters away.

does this mean they'll explode an enclosed container if mixed? does this mean you can separate them by compression?

That's only really a concern if you're attempting to work backwards from the mixed solution. If you're trying to figure out how much of X to mix in Y, it doesn't matter if the volume changes upon mixing.

You mean the LK-99 'not room temperature superconductor'

He wouldn't bother, because it's almost certainly a non-result that was manipulated to get more lab funding. Hence why no single other lab has been able to reproduce the results.

@@AureliusR yes on hindsight I wouldn't want him to waste his time..