Talk:Ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imranwiki hunter.
:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07094-9 78.3.186.246 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: Maybe a Chemistry section should be added to this article explaining electronic transitions, chromophores, lambda max, mentioning Woodward-Hoffman rules.  H Padleckas 21:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May not be necessary since all those terms are mentioned throughout the article. LostLucidity (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe a new "Chemistry" section

message: Might be worth adding something about the use of UV/VIS spectrophotometers as detectors on High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) instruments. Alan Pascoe 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in HPLC 

message: I think the types of instruments listed is an artifact from how spectroscopy is traditionally taught. Single and double beam machines, choppers, etc. Stuff like diffraction gratings which are no longer used, now that we have FT.
I added the See also: IR because I feel that they are complementary techniques. One is quantitative, while the other is qualitative.
--Rifleman 82 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd just noticed that the content under "Types of Instrument" was all also under the section "Ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer".  It should certainly be there, since the majority of instruments are still dispersive, even with improvements in FT performance.  UV/Vis and IR *are* complementary techniques, so we might as well 'see also' NMR, and Raman, and MS, since all of these also "complement" UV/Vis.  (That's slightly ironic; I don't really suggest pointing to NMR since the two techniques aren't really very similar in either how they work or what they provide.  Then again, I wouldn't have thought to point out IR as being particularly close to UV/Vis.)  Anyway.  I don't think any information's been lost, in either section; if you think I condensed too much feel free to change it back. :)  Jaeger5432 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of instrument, tweak; See also: IR 

message: IUPAC recommends that ε be called the molar (decadic) absorption coefficient.  See , , and especially .
— DIV (128.250.204.118 08:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molar (decadic) absorption coefficient 

message: Is there a standard way to capitalize UV/VIS? The page uses UV/VIS, UV/Vis, and UV/vis interchangeably, as far as I can tell. Perhaps a note should be added about this. Chessbot (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a vote for UV/Vis and have changed the article in the interim for the sake of consistency. This is the standard I have seen used in most UK and US hardcopy trade publications. If anyone disagrees, feel free to edit, but if you're going to do so please be consistent throughout... --SciHound (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization consistency 

message: I notice that information about instruments with built-in short path length capabilities has recently been deleted as non-notable advertising. I have experience in using short path length cells (0.1 mm or shorter) and I know just how difficult it is to work with them successfully; a lot of care and special technique is required. For instance, I never found a good way to clean dried protein deposits from cylindrical fixed length cells; when a sample was allowed to dry in one of these Suprasil cells, a very expensive cell became a total loss. The demountable cells, on the other hand, require great care in closing and sealing them. In the particular work I was involved in, short path cells, no longer than 1 mm path, were necessary in the UV below about 220 nm because of solvent absorption. Based on my experience, I think it is very difficult to create an instrument with a short path with a highly reproducible length and a good seal. A small sample volume has other obvious advantages as well. While many uses of spectrometers can be satisfied by a very simple instrument, I believe having a reliable method of using short paths and small volumes will make many new applications feasible and will also save considerable laboratory time and cost. So I think that describing this class of instruments is certainly notable and belongs in the article. --AJim (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  short path length measurements 

message: Ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy or ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometry (UV-Vis or UV/Vis) refers to absorption spectroscopy or reflectance spectroscopy in the ultraviolet-visible spectral region. This means it uses light in the visible and adjacent (near-UV and near-infrared) ranges.
You've just redefined 
:"ultraviolet plus visible"
to mean
:"near-UV plus visible plus near-infrared"
I'm sure these don't mean the same thing. So which range is it? 178.39.122.125 (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions incoherent 

message: Much of the material in the section entitled Practical considerations would be more comprehensible if it were placed after the explicit  description of the device in the section called Ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of sections