Minor controversies regarding the determination of bulk density (natural packing method)

Thread Content

The company has received a batch of powder, and we want to determine its approximate density. The testing center measured it using a dust natural bulk density meter and then produced a result. Describing the report as “natural bulk density: 0.69 g/mL” allows workshop employees or process engineers to understand the meaning of this density right away. However, another colleague from the testing center said that it should not be described in that way; it should be written as 0.69 g/cubic centimeter (if superscripts aren’t available, then it should be written in Chinese). The purpose of posting this is to ask whether the description of natural bulk density as 0.69 g/mL is definitely incorrect (or whether it’s acceptable to express it that way). When those two people came to me for advice, I said, “It’s okay, but it’s better to use cubic centimeters.” Later, I thought I should reply that cubic centimeters must be used! After all, the reports from testing centers reflect the professional standard of those tests; it would be ridiculous to provide such reports to colleagues, wouldn’t it?