Talk:Capillary electrophoresis

message: anyone can fix the math part (reads in red)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.18.33.213 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The stub at the start of the article reads like an advertisement, it does not seem very encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PieCam (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Paragraph

message: I'm currently preparing a series of classes on electrophoresis (and electrokinetic effects) for our graduate course, Fields Forces and Flows in Biological Systems (20.430) at MIT. While I have an extensive set of notes for this (soon to be in a published text), I checked online to see what's there and came across Wikipedia's article on Capillary Electrophoresis. This article contains formulas related to fundamental electrophoresis.
Unfortunately, the expression stated for the electrophoretic mobility of an "analyte" is common, but is generally wrong and therefore misleading. The simple (incorrect) equation given in the wiki article is from the stated balance between the Stoke's Drag force (6-pi-R-u-V)vs the "qE" force exerted on a particle of charge "q" by an electric field E. Getting the right answer is the foundation for understanding electrophoresis.
As Cantor and Schimmel state in their 1980 3-volume series on Biophysical Chemistry (WH Freeman and Co., Part 2, page 678), "....this description of electrophoresis (i.e., the formula in the Wiki)...is completely inadequate. An immediate difficulty arises over what to call the net charge on a macromolecule."
The issue alluded to by Cantor and Schimmel is that counterions surround the particle in aqueous solution. Therefore, the NET charge by Gauss' Law is zero (not "q"). There have been many detailed papers and monographs written about this issue and the derivation of the electrophoretic mobility: the need, here, is to balance electrical and viscous stresses in the electrical double layer region surrounding the particle. As a result, the "answer" is far more complicated than the simple formula in the wiki, and is often orders of magnitude different than would be predicted by this simple formula. 
Another very good text related to this is V. Levich's classic, Physicochemical Hydrodynamics (Prentice Hall, 1962).
18.125.1.172 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect expression for the electrophoretic mobility in this article 

message: This article contains a number of errors, some of them minor, some of them not-so-minor-I got tired mentally listing the smaller errors.  For the record, I have a number of publications in the field in major journals: hence my bias.  I'm not sure the equations are helpful to the average reader wanting to know something about the technique.  I would suggest that a sample electropherogram be shown to see what CE actually generates: it is quite one thing to say the technique separates compounds and another to see it-a picture is really worth a thousand words here, IMO.  No disrespect to the writer of the article, but it reads like a textbook, not an encyclopedic description of  quite an esoteric technique.  No need to confuse the reader further.:>}
Dehughes (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A number of errors 

message: Not that the stuff in here is wrong but it reads like it came from a 1980s-era undergrad analytical chemistry textbook.  The discussion on resolution and theoretical plates is highly idealized and doesn't reflect the numerous sources of band broadening.  It also gives the naive impression that all you have to do is crank up the electric field to get better resolution.  I will try to add a little bit of practical knowledge to this, as I have time.  Also the whole thing is written as if the "normal" mode (with EOF) is the only way anyone ever does CE.  Which is untrue.  So I added a paragraph introducing the idea that people routinely coat the inner surface of capillaries to kill EOF and decrease analyte adsorption.RobertM75 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly idealized and lacks practical information 

message: Micellar electrokinetic chromatography is abbreviated (MEKC) not MECC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.213.98 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Abbreviation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Capillary electrophoresis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060427002319/http://www.babonline.org:80/bab/027/0009/bab0270009.htm to http://www.babonline.org/bab/027/0009/bab0270009.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413145353/http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/primers/Public/5990-3777EN.pdf to http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/primers/Public/5990-3777EN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: tolong 125.160.166.237 (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobilitas partikel secara elektroforesis dan elektroosmetik adalah  2:3 dengan tekanan yang di hasilkan antara ke dua ujung pipa kapiler 8 atm dan 6 atm.jari jari pipa kapiler sebesar 27 dan konsentrasi sampel 10% dan kapilernya 100cm.berapakah waktu yang di perlukan hingga terjadi pergerakan partikel secara menyeluruh 

message: — Assignment last updated by Yuxuan0831 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378 - Biochemistry Lab - Fall 2023