Understanding the Beer-Lambert Law: Questions on Absorbance and Concentration

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter NLO
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 14K views
NLO
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I am looking for help with understanding how to specify correct absorbance values for my little study project of modeling attenuation of light in a material.

Here are the sources that I am using:
1) The Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law

states that the absorbance of a sample A is alpha*l*c, where alpha = (4*pi*k) /lambda and k is the extinction coefficient.

Question 1: Is k supposed to be the extinction coefficient of the absorbing species?

Question 2: If I am using k to calculate alpha as in the formula above, this makes c to be dimensionless (right?). How shall I then understand c?

I found here:
http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/concentration.html

that concentration can be specified as percent by mass or parts per million. Is this the case? Shall the concentration in my case be specified as dimensionless? For example 0.01 for 1 percent of mass of the absorbing species in the material?

Thank you for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dr Transport, thanks!

Did I get it right that k is meant to be here the extinction coefficient of the material not of the absorbing particles?

So if i have k=0.07 for light with wavelength = 400 nm, then I get the following expression for attenuated light:
I1 = I0* exp(-path_length * 0.01 * (4*pi*0.07)/(400 * 1e-9)),
where:
1) path_length - length of path of light in material (measured in meters)
2) 0.01 - concentration of absorbing particles (equal to 1 percent of mass)
3) (4 * pi * 0.07)/(400 * 1e-9) - the absorption coefficient alpha (with wavelength measured in meters as well)

Is this correct?

Thank you for your help!