Talk:Absorption (chemistry)

message: Maybe it should be called differently, because it's a physical rather than chemical process. Also categorization is probably bad, but I was trying to be consistent with  adsorption. Hope somebody more knowledgeable in physical chemistry will fix this. Samohyl Jan 00:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Apparently "The most common application of absorption uses midget impinger with a fritted bubbler." Firstly, this isn't grammatical. Secondly, I had to consult a commercial catalogue to find out what a midget impinger is. Thirdly, I still don't know what a fritted bubbler is after some time searching the net. And I have A-level chemistry.
This is written in jargon, not English, and needs to be rewritten if it is to be any use.
Ewjw 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical example is incomprehensible 

message: Midget impingers and fritted bubblers are common sampling equipment used by an Industrial Hygienist in evaluating airborne contaminants that can be absorbed in a liquid media.
Agreed
Shoefly 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider a link to Industrial Hygiene Sampling 

message: The expansion request from January 2005 (not from me) asks:
:Absorption (chemistry) should be at least as long as adsorption, and it should contain similar information about equilibriums in solutions (and the relevant formulas or links there), and so on.
-- Beland 10:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion notes 

message: should talk about or "see also": Capillary action  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieb000 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  capillary action 

message: I am going to remove the IUPAC definition for the following reasons:
# If the definition were quoted exactly from the source, that would likely be a copyright violation.
# The definition as provided appears to be a paraphrase of the original, but this introduces elements of original research to assert that the paraphrasing is equivalent to the original.
# Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
-- WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC definition 

message: The reddish color of copper is an example of this process because it is caused due to its absorption of blue light.'
:Doesn't belong here, isn't absorption in the sense of this article. Andres (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the sentence. Andres (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Copper

message: "Moisture regain" redirects to this article even though it wasn't defined, or even mentioned, anywhere in the article and I can't find it in the history.  It is related to absorption, so I've made a quick addition to the article.  If you feel it doesn't belong here, please find somewhere better to put it, oh and update the redirect if needed. :)  Thanks. Pastychomper (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moisture regain 

message: The article was flawed but i improved it. original talked about Nernst whatever law which must be well known or else would not be used casually in an explanation of a process? - wrong: Wikpedia has no article of the mentioned Nernst whatever, however it seems to have a whole bunch of pages that mention somewhere some other Nernst whatevers. After some detective work that should not have been necessiated if the article was properly written to begin with it seems that Nernst was dealing with solutions, eg soultion of one substance in another, equilibrium of solutions when two different solvents compete for the same soluable material, etc. So it seems that the thing mentioned has to do something with the ratio of solvent and soluable and the rate of the solving process, etc.
Probably this article would have been better off if Nerd was left out and instead it would have talked about the better efficiency of chemically solving something than phisically mixing the same thing. Nevertheless Nerds rules and equilibriums and whatevers are mentioned in many other articles, so probably Nerd deserves a mention on a side note as an mportant contributor to the science but that belongs to history of science rather than the description of the process of solving/absorption, etc.
Besides: while the distinction between ABsorption and ADsorption is important as it clarifies a really long ongoing and quite disurbing misunderstanding - it should be also noted that the distinction between absorption and adsorption in an example of a liquid absorbent is rather trivial since a liquid cant have (?) OK, maybe just usually doesnt have a distinct bulk and a distinct (inner) surface - in contrast with solid structures like active charcoral. Maybe even better were to point out that normally adsorption means a solid material with lots of cracks or bubbles inside creating a large surface that the filtered material can stick to, while liquids dont have such a surface and instead can filter out the same substance by bulk, hence the different term absorption for the latter process.
89.134.199.32 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nernst whatever 

message: As discussed previously at WT:Chemistry, we have come up with a new linked graphic for IUPAC definitions.  These images have been released under a CC-BY-SA license so they can be used in Wikipedia.  If you have any feedback, please comment here or on my talk page.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New IUPAC definition box