May 19th, 2012
Publication year: 2012 Source:Marine Chemistry, Volumes 128–129 Liyang Yang, Huasheng Hong, Weidong Guo, Chen-Tung Arthur Chen, Pei-I Pan, Chun-Chin Feng The role of hydrothermal vents as either a source or a sink for chromophoric and fluorescent dissolved organic matter (CDOM and FDOM) in the oceans is unknown, since DOM absorption and fluorescence have not been reported for submarine hydrothermal vents. Water samples were collected from two shallow submarine hydrothermal vents off NE Taiwan, the white vent and the yellow vent, during two cruises in August, 2010. Absorption and excitation-emission-matrix fluorescence spectroscopy were used to characterize the optical properties of DOM from such extremely special environments. The absorption coefficients at wavelength 300nm (a300) were much higher at the white vent mouth and 1m below it (2.52±0.88m-1) than in the background (0.34±0.12m-1). This indicated that the white vent was a source of CDOM for seawater. Three fluorescent components were identified using parallel factor analysis: humic-like C1, tyrosine-like C3, and C2 as a combination of tryptophan-like and marine humic-like components. Both C1 and C3 (but not C2) had their highest fluorescence intensity at the white vent mouth and 1m below it, suggesting the role of the vent as a source for both humic-like and tyrosine-like DOM. Samples from the yellow vent mouth also had a higher a300 than the ambient seawater in our first cruise, but had fluorescence intensities of C(1–3) similar to the ambient seawater. Overall, the low humification index (HIX: 1.40±0.30) and the high autochthonous index (BIX: 1.27±0.63) indicated that the DOM likely had low humic contents and was mainly autochthonous of biological or bacterial origin in the study area. A biplot of HIX and BIX showed that DOM from the hydrothermal vents had a characteristic similar to terrestrial cave and spring waters, but was distinct from isolated humics.
► The white hydrothermal vent off NE Taiwan is a source of CDOM for seawater. ► Fluorescent components are identified using EEM-PARAFAC. ► HIX and BIX suggested the DOM was mainly autochthonous with low humic contents. ► This is the first time CDOM in submarine hydrothermal vents is studied.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 19th, 2012
Image via Wikipedia
Which state of matter best describes you?
Solids are comprised of tightly packed molecules. They are rigid, holding their own shape. The atoms that make up a solid are stuck, their movement compromised by the proximity of their neighbors. If you are a solid, you are fixed in your life. Your environment does not impact your shape, as you resist influence from your surroundings. If too much resistance is applied, a solid crumbles and fragments, but it takes quite a bit for this to occur. Solids are consistent, yet their stalwart nature can make them vulnerable to fragmentation or erosion.
The particles that form liquids are freer to move, yet they posses cohesive properties that encourage them to remain in proximity to each other. The defining characteristic of a liquid is that it takes the shape of its container. If you are a liquid, you allow the environment to shape you, yet you maintain a a sense of self held in the solidarity of your component parts. You naturally flow, yet can move against the pull of gravity when effort is applied. You are resistant to pressure, yet accepting of influence.
Gasses are the free spirits of the chemical world; their particles enjoy total freedom at the expense of identity. The atoms and molecules in a gas will expand to fill its container as they bounce around with no thought to each other. If you are gas, you push against the constraints of your environment, constantly looking for a way out. The application of pressure simply intensifies this effect. You are free, open to anything, yet may not have a developed sense of self, as your component parts do not blend.
States of matter can be changed. Apply enough heat to a solid and it softens, liquifies. Apply too much perhaps, and you lose your substance as it evaporates. On the other hand, compress freely moving molecules hard enough, and you transition them to a liquid and eventually a solid.
In my own life, I strive to be a liquid. I want to be unified and have a definable self, yet I want to be open to influence. I desire to be able to relax and go with the flow, yet also be able to move against the current at will. The pressures I have faced have forced internal cohesion and the warmth from those around me has kept me soft and pliable. I try to monitor the dials and switches on my internal chemistry set to maintain this optimal balance despite the impact of the environment.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 16th, 2012
Publication year: 2012 Source:Marine Chemistry, Volumes 134–135 Mats A. Granskog We investigated the changes in absorption and spectral slopes of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) using a data set of salinity, δ18O and CDOM absorption in Hudson Bay. Following the fraction of river water (determined with salinity and δ18O tracers) one can track the changes in terrestrial CDOM optical properties with mixing and removal, as salinity cannot alone be used in waters with significant influence from sea-ice melt. CDOM in Hudson Bay was controlled by terrestrial inputs, in contrast to adjacent Hudson Strait. CDOM absorption was removed significantly, likely due to photobleaching. There was no or negligible indication of absorption removal during initial estuarine mixing, in agreement with earlier studies. Of the many absorption spectral slope (S) parameters that have been used as proxies for CDOM dynamics, the ones at shorter wavelengths proved the best indicators for absorption removal by photobleaching. Increase in absorption spectral slopes at 275 to 295 (S275–295) and 290 to 350nm (S290–350) are strongly correlated with the apparent removal of CDOM absorption. S275–295 and S290–350 in combination with spectral slopes and ratios at other wavelength intervals, which are sensitive to other processes and sources, can potentially reveal more information about CDOM origin and dynamics than a single slope alone.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 16th, 2012
Publication year: 2012 Source:Marine Chemistry, Volumes 128–129 Liyang Yang, Huasheng Hong, Weidong Guo, Chen-Tung Arthur Chen, Pei-I Pan, Chun-Chin Feng The role of hydrothermal vents as either a source or a sink for chromophoric and fluorescent dissolved organic matter (CDOM and FDOM) in the oceans is unknown, since DOM absorption and fluorescence have not been reported for submarine hydrothermal vents. Water samples were collected from two shallow submarine hydrothermal vents off NE Taiwan, the white vent and the yellow vent, during two cruises in August, 2010. Absorption and excitation-emission-matrix fluorescence spectroscopy were used to characterize the optical properties of DOM from such extremely special environments. The absorption coefficients at wavelength 300nm (a300) were much higher at the white vent mouth and 1m below it (2.52±0.88m-1) than in the background (0.34±0.12m-1). This indicated that the white vent was a source of CDOM for seawater. Three fluorescent components were identified using parallel factor analysis: humic-like C1, tyrosine-like C3, and C2 as a combination of tryptophan-like and marine humic-like components. Both C1 and C3 (but not C2) had their highest fluorescence intensity at the white vent mouth and 1m below it, suggesting the role of the vent as a source for both humic-like and tyrosine-like DOM. Samples from the yellow vent mouth also had a higher a300 than the ambient seawater in our first cruise, but had fluorescence intensities of C(1–3) similar to the ambient seawater. Overall, the low humification index (HIX: 1.40±0.30) and the high autochthonous index (BIX: 1.27±0.63) indicated that the DOM likely had low humic contents and was mainly autochthonous of biological or bacterial origin in the study area. A biplot of HIX and BIX showed that DOM from the hydrothermal vents had a characteristic similar to terrestrial cave and spring waters, but was distinct from isolated humics.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 13th, 2012
It doesn't matter what your child to more easily digest the environmental chemistry courses is static. Sometimes, pictures and models are available in the environmental chemistry courses with those in California being used …
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 13th, 2012
Content is the most essential aspect on web, as it is for offline magazines and newspapers. It doesn’t matter what kind of website you own, it should carry content. Content is the difference between successful websites/magazines, and not so successful websites/magazines.
Promotion and marketing of sites and magazines are equally important to make them successful, yet content is far more important, simply because it is the basis on which websites and magazines are established. No matter how hard you promote or market your website, if you don’t have content that turn heads, your website won’t be able to sustain the fruits of marketing. Readers come to your site to read content. Marketing is just a tool to draw readers, but eventually, it’s the content that truly matters.
Image Source: Start-up publisher is desperate via Shutterstock
Ability to express ideas leads to great content
Creating good content is an art. It takes years of experience, failures and expertise to create good content. And also, one should have comprehensive knowledge along with the experiences and expertise, to dig out facts and create great the content.
How does one create content that sells? I’ve attended seminars and visited forums, and observed that writers often seem to lose the plot while finding the perfect formula to write good content. Content creation doesn’t relate to a formula. It’s not only about grammar and sentence construction, but also about how to give wings to your ideas. An idea is the essence of creating content. Good content creators know the process of intertwining ideas with facts, and polish it up with a perfect grammatical finish. That’s how content should be created, and doing it that way would require certain fixed principles to be covered.
Content should have depth
No one likes to go to plow through plain information and boring data. There are plenty of magazines that provide exactly that kind of information. Readers have become smarter. They’re fed-up reading the same old story rewritten by different authors in various magazines. They now seek unique content, not just unique in web terms, but unique in the way the content provokes their thought process. They prefer content that takes them to an unknown domain. Readers do love to read a new take on issues. The topics might have grown old, but what most readers look at is how differently the content has dealt with the topic. Has it provided a new angle on things?
Image Source: Apparently, all the people who via Shutterstock
Readers love to go through the content as long as it ignites interest. And interest can only be generated, if the content has dug deep and presented facts, with a unique stance. That is exactly what every content creator needs to do. He should learn to look beyond the facade, and search for rare facts on the subject. This may not be easy for someone young and lacking foresight. In order to create content with depth, it is significant to have the ability to look deep inside a topic, and then find words to express what you just saw.
Create content for a targeted audience
Every magazine, online or offline has its own audience base. Content creators should learn about the readers who will eventually read their content. Magazines know their readers, and therefore, they want content to have the appeal to satisfy their readers. It’s not surprising to find magazines clearly stating in their ‘write for us’ section to adhere to the writing style of the magazine. They also mention to go through at least three back issues before writing any content for them. The reason is magazines don’t want content creators to simply develop content without focussing on the style and direction of a magazine. Every magazine has a fixed style and certain direction, and their readers have become used to reading content in that style.
Image Source: Writer who is on deadline via Shutterstock
If you’ve decided to write for a publication house, make sure you understand their penchant for a particular style. It’s no coincidence that a magazine generally follows a set house style pattern for all its issues. Magazines also have a particular tone, which they use in their content. Content creators should always identify the style and tone of a magazine before writing content for it. There’s plenty of good content that gets rejected by publication houses, just because such content doesn’t fit with the direction and the tone of a magazine. Successful content creators carry a knack to adjust their creations according to the demands of a publication house.
Content should be geared to captivate your audience
How to mesmerize readers? Have you ever thought about what makes readers click? It’s not always perfect grammar that attracts readers. Grammatical errors should never be a part of any content, but good grammar alone is not enough. Content creators should learn to play with words. Everyone talks, yet not everyone is effective. It’s exactly the same with creating content.
Some content creators have learned the art of captivating audiences. And they use it to the best of their ability. It’s important to create content with an eye to develop chemistry with your readers. It is the chemistry between readers and content creators that makes magazines successful. Good magazines are trained to choose content that helps them in their cause. If your content is found wanting, it may be left out.
The more you dwell on a subject, and involve yourself completely, the better you will be able to stretch your ideas and produce content, which will create impact in the minds of the readers. That’s what readers look for. The language of the content also makes considerable contribution in generating reader interest. The easy flow of any content, with pleasing language is an essential facet while creating it. Again, the nature of your readers also determines how you should characterize your content.
Conversational content or otherwise
Conversational content is more effective. The real advantage of being conversational is you have the opportunity to induce reader interest. Readers come out of the content thinking that it has touched some aspect of their life. A reader can relate to it, and therefore it makes for an interesting reading session. Those who blog are advised to use conversational tone in their blogs, because readers find it more engaging and relaxing. Even print magazines prefer conversational content, as magazines are meant to provide intense information in a laid back tone.
Image Source: The publisher and market via Shutterstock
No one likes to read serious stuff in a third person boring tone. Content creators should use serious formal content, only when they are asked to fill up company’s website with information based content. Writing conversational content would mean – to begin a sentence with a verb at times. By doing so, you can pack sufficient information by using less words. It makes content more compact.
However, everyone may have their own style. The bottom line is how well you connect with your readers. If your created content can touch readers, then any content style is worth it. Content creators should understand the fact that it’s the readers who are the best judges of their work. And if they don’t like your work, then it’s time to switch to a different style.
Comments and Reactions
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 10th, 2012
Please login to post comments. After login, we will forward you back to this quiz.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 10th, 2012
In 2007 Durham University established the multidisciplinary Biophysical Sciences Institute (BSI) in which physical scientists work closely with life scientists to solve complex biological problems. The BSI was enhanced by the establishment in 2010 of the Durham Centre for Soft Matter (DCSM) researching both biological and physical soft matter. Both the BSI and DCSM draw on world-leading expertise on surfaces and interfaces in the Chemistry Department and the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Reader/Professor in Theoretical Soft and Biological Matter. Theoretical soft matter now covers a broad spectrum of methodologies and we will appoint an individual who can provide both theoretical grounding and leadership to the experimental research at all levels. Areas of expertise could include creating statistical mechanical models of soft matter systems: surfactants, polymers, colloids, emulsions, foams, glass transition, jamming, biological soft matter, biopolymers, active suspensions, dynamics of complex fluids, biological fluid dynamics, non-equilibrium dynamics, de-mixing, phase transitions, stability theory, multi-scale modelling of complex fluids. There will be a strong link to the Centre for Computational Science. [Potential home department: Physics, Chemistry, School of Biological Biomedical Sciences]
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/AEK373/lecturer-senior-lecturer-reader-professor-in-theoretical-soft-and-biological-matter/
Tags: Biomedical Sciences, Chemistry, dynamics, leadership, Life, Mechanical, Physics, Professor, science, University
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 7th, 2012
Publication year: 2012 Source:Marine Chemistry, Volumes 134–135 Mats A. Granskog We investigated the changes in absorption and spectral slopes of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) using a data set of salinity, δ18O and CDOM absorption in Hudson Bay. Following the fraction of river water (determined with salinity and δ18O tracers) one can track the changes in terrestrial CDOM optical properties with mixing and removal, as salinity cannot alone be used in waters with significant influence from sea-ice melt. CDOM in Hudson Bay was controlled by terrestrial inputs, in contrast to adjacent Hudson Strait. CDOM absorption was removed significantly, likely due to photobleaching. There was no or negligible indication of absorption removal during initial estuarine mixing, in agreement with earlier studies. Of the many absorption spectral slope (S) parameters that have been used as proxies for CDOM dynamics, the ones at shorter wavelengths proved the best indicators for absorption removal by photobleaching. Increase in absorption spectral slopes at 275 to 295 (S275–295) and 290 to 350nm (S290–350) are strongly correlated with the apparent removal of CDOM absorption. S275–295 and S290–350 in combination with spectral slopes and ratios at other wavelength intervals, which are sensitive to other processes and sources, can potentially reveal more information about CDOM origin and dynamics than a single slope alone.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
May 7th, 2012
“How can I just go straight to med school…you know…in the shortest amount of time possible?” a wide-eyed high school student in my summer program class asked me.
“You mean…you want to skip college?” I asked her in response, a bit in disbelief, a bit hoping really only to clarify.
The daughter of two physicians and already an excellent science scholar, this student responded with a kind of all-knowing smirk to my follow-up, “Of course, Jessi. I am going to be a doctor, I need to know how I can do that now…not later.”
With her overeager enthusiasm for all things science and her dire need to rush into a career in medicine, I was suddenly transported back in time to my own experiences. Hoping to save her from my own mistakes (hindsight is OF COURSE 20/20), I wanted to shake that kind of “hurry-it-up-and-get-‘er-done” attitude out of her as early as I could. Though a much more diplomatic response including the pluses and minuses of doing a 6 year medical program actually came out of my mouth, all that I was actually thinking was screaming, “NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. NOT AGAIN”.
As early as elementary school, I knew that I wanted to be a doctor. The “well-duh” look on our family friends’ faces suggested that most people merely thought my definitive career choice was due to the fact that my father was a physician and was secretly brainwashing me with science (not to be confused with the 1980s classic She Blinded Me with Science). Even though I checked under my bed for hypnotic tapes of anatomical texts and made sure my copies of Nickelodeon Magazine weren’t replaced by the journals Science or Nature (just kidding), the truth of the matter was, no matter how hard I tried to pretend that what I was interested in wasn’t science (or how much my dad tried to expose me to other interests), the root of my nerd-driven excitement could always be traced back to something medically related.
For “Role Model Day” in 3rd grade, I dressed up as Marie Curie and tried my best to explain to my classmates who exactly I was – while they all came dressed as baseball players, actresses or football stars. I excitedly dissected animals, while the other girls made noises or grossed out faces (or worse, threw up). And, in high school, when other kids worked at the GAP or the movies over the summer (and got fabulous perks like discounts and free tickets), I spent hours after swim practice cutting and staining spinal cord sections of rats in a spinal cord regeneration lab (cool, right?). I knew this was NOT a normal way to spend my free time, but I knew what I wanted to be and what I was “supposed to” do to get there. Like my “oh-so-goal-directed student”, I assumed I was good to go – not just to college – but straight on to medical school.
In the fall of 2005, I matriculated at the University of Pennsylvania. I planned to be a neuroscience major, work in basic science lab and volunteer in the hospital. And, because I desperately wanted to study abroad, I wanted to take all of my premed requirements and the MCAT before the end of my sophomore year (a feat that most people accomplish using one more full year of school). This was a truly insane idea, but no one had told me that at the time.
Ego blow by ego blow I slowly realized that I might have bitten off more than I could chew. In the fall, I dropped calculus, after I realized that there was no way I could beat the engineers on the curve who were repeating the class for a good grade. Spring term, I had finals for biology and chemistry on the same day within two hours of each other. To have a better normal distribution of grades for the course overall, the chemistry teacher had decided to up the anty on the final even though the rest of the year had been fair and MUCH easier (aka I studied WAY less for chem then I did for bio) and, after opening my chemistry final and realizing how hard it actually was, I went into a state of shock and just started crying. Yes, in front of my HUGE introductory science class of gunners, ferociously taking an exam, I started BALLING. In fact, I am not sure I would have even started the test if the TA hadn’t come over and talked me through one of the easier problems from the back of the test to get me started. For someone who had never had any trouble academically (especially in science), this was turning into a disaster.
I found myself in advisor meeting after advisor meeting wondering how on Earth I thought I could handle not just this course load, but pre-med, and even medicine itself. I was questioning becoming the one thing I knew I wanted to be my whole life because of some stupid curve and some stupid tests. I believe the words “If I am too dumb to do well in chemistry, I am WAY too stupid to be a doctor”, came out of my mouth. In response to my rantings, my advisor told me to consider taking a semester off from the sciences (and from “pre-med”). My parents thought this was a bad idea, as this path was always what I wanted to do and I think they were worried that I might be discouraged completely (like so many other would be amazingly empathetic physician types are) for the wrong reasons. Yet, since there were general requirements I had to complete for Penn and an English requirement for premed anyway, I listened and ultimately, this was the best decision I could have made.
In my semester away from the pre-meds (you know the people always talking about grades and telling you they don’t know how to do something, when really, they do, they just don’t want to help you get points on a test), the curves, the stress and the need to keep chugging along on this long path to doctor-hood, I actually took the time to figure out what I liked and what I wanted to study. I took a course on the History of the American South after Reconstruction, which was probably the best class I ever took at Penn. I found Anthropology, which I ended up not only majoring in, but getting a Masters in. I found clinical, social science, and public health research and mentors who I loved. Oh, and outside of academics, I rushed a sorority and had a lot of fun. I stopped listening to what I thought I was “supposed to do” or what I thought people “wanted me to do” for my future applications to medical school and instead, I looked around at all the different opportunities that college offered (including socially) and, I said, as cheesy as it sounds: What would make me HAPPY?? If I could study ANYTHING what would it be?
When you are growing up it seems like there are only three careers you can possibly be: a doctor, a lawyer and a businessman (er, well woman). Someone always wants to know “what you want to be when you grow up” and this is hard if you have only heard of 3 jobs (brainwashing, much?). Then, when you are grown up (like say when you are in medical school), they always want to know what comes next (like what specialty you are going into?). This is the same thing as when you have a boyfriend and people always want to know when you are going to get engaged and then when you are going to get married and then when you are going to have a kid. The best thing you can do is take the time to make an informed decision. Just as you wouldn’t rush into a marriage (I think? Er, well hope?), you shouldn’t rush into a career like medicine just because you have always wanted to do it or your parents think you should do it. Doubt is more than healthy and you should be able to answer the “Why do I want to do this?” question with more than just a stereotyped admissions made up answer. It is much better to have asked yourself this question and really thought about the answer before you have trained for 10 years to become a doctor. People do not tell you this, because for some reason it is sacrilegious to say it, but the road really does not get any easier for a while (and we are talking years, not weeks).
While it is true that I still ended up in medical school (and some people in medical school love basic science and basic science research and more power to them for that), for me, the way that I think about issues and patients, the things that I am interested in and the mentality that I have in facing the difficulties in this long and challenging path, are all greatly influenced by the fact that I broadened my outlook in college and took (and still take) the time to remember WHY. It is the WHY that keeps me going and it is the WHY that makes all the difference.
You can read more from Jessi Gold on her blog and follow her on Twitter.
Posted in Information | No Comments »
|
|