Talk:Liquid–liquid extraction

message: I'm giving the following unsigned comment it's own section. Chemeditor (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but without citation, little better than any other editor's offerings (though this one knows his stuff, making the non-verifiabiliuty all the more sad).  For best available (and comparable or better content), see the first "Further information" entry, by Karger.  Le Prof
I found a good article in Chemical Engineering, October 2018. I notice a detailed description of the shake test apparatus, among other things. It might be a good source of references to cite. Here is the link: https://www.chemengonline.com/liquid-liquid-extraction-generating-equilibrium-data/
Jeffreagan (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic information for article

message: This may seem  trivial but I believe the "distribution ratio" discussed in the article is usually referred to as the "distribution coefficient," with a symbol of K not D.  It is written this way in my lab manual, text book and other sources on the internet.  The term 
"distribution coefficient" also seems to be more specific and may help eliminate confusion. Nilboarder 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the solvent extraction of metals, it is normal to sum all the concentrations of the different forms of the metal in each phase to get a total metal content. This allows the calculation of a "distribution ratio" for the metal. Each of the different species will have a "distribution coefficient" which will be different. By combining the contributions made by each of the different species (with its own "distribution coefficient") you can then get the "distribution ratio" (D) for that metal. Principles and Practices of Solvent Extraction by Jan Rydberg, Claude Musikas and Gregory R. Choppin will explain more of the way in which a D value is obtained (also this book tends to use D values).Cadmium
--182.187.40.192 (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this fine citation appear anywhere in this article? And is there an explanation of the terms as they are used in metals analysis, versus organic analysis?  The student objection is very reasonable, and we should learn from it.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution coefficient 

message: This is again a very trivial matter.  This page reflects strongly the historic origins of liquid:liquid extraction but the majority (in dollar value) of extractions are performed as part of work-up of organic processes.  This does not seem to be reflected in the bias of the page.  Patricksears
This is true to some extent but the emphasis in this article is on applications where liquid-liquid extraction is used in metallurgy. This limitation could well be better declared and reference links to a more general article included. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inorganic Bias 

message: In my opinion, this is not a very clear description on what LLE is and its applications. For me as an analytical chemist, LLE does not mean the unit operation but a sample workup method. The process is the same but calcuations and concerns are different. Should this be pointed out in the article?Mia Legato 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro vs Macro scale LLE

message: ===One big batch of solvent or several smaller batches?===
When a solute is being extracted from an aqueous phase using an organic solvent, a better recovery will be obtained by using two equal volumes of solvent than the recovery that would be obtained using all the solvent in one large volume.
This can be shown by experiment and can be explained by the following example.
* Imagine that you have a liter of water containing 10 grams of a solute which has a distribution ratio of one when the solvent is nitrobenzene.
If the aqueous solution is shaken until a dynamic equilibrium is reached with one liter of nitrobenzene, then five grams of solute would be transferred. The aqueous raffinate will contain five grams of solute. 50% of the solute has been recovered.
* Imagine that the same original aqueous mixture was shaken with 500 ml of nitrobenzene. When the system has been brought to equilibrium, the concentration of the solute in each phase is the same. As the organic to aqueous ratio is now 1:2 the aqueous phase will now contain 6.666 g of solute while the organic layer will have 3.333 g of solute.
If the two layers are now separated and the nitrobenzene extract is kept, then the aqueous layer (raffinate) can be treated further.
* If the raffinate from this first extraction is extracted with 500 ml of new nitrobenzene, then 33.33% of the remaining solute will be extracted. This will be 2.222 g of solute in the new nitrobenzene extract. In total, 3.333 + 2.222 grams of solute for a total of 5.555 grams will have been extracted. This is a recovery of 55.56%. An additional 5.56% of product has been obtained.
If the nitrobenzene was to be used in four batches of 250 ml then the outcome is theoretically better still.
The first 250 ml will extract 2 grams.
The second 250 ml will extract 1.6 grams.
The third 250 ml will extract 1.28 grams.
The fourth 250 ml will extract 1.024 grams.
In total 5.904 grams is extracted; this is a recovery of 59%.
* The process of using one large batch of solvent to extract solute is called a single extraction. The process of using several small batches of solvent to extract solute is called multiple extractions.
I've removed this section per WP:NOT a textbook. Perhaps it can be condensed and re-added. I might do it later, but if someone is game... --Rifleman 82 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rifleman's point is very well taken.  It does not belong here, but it does belong here.  See Karger, first "Further information" entry, for a decent discussion on the use of this type of example in making a very important theoretical point.  Le Prof   Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed chunk

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I removed the following from the intro:
*In an industrial application, this process is done continuously by pumping an organic and aqueous stream into a mixer. This mixes the organic component with the aqueous component and allows ion transfer between them. The mixing continues until equilibrium is reached. Once the ion transfer is complete (equilibrium is reached), the mixture flows into a vessel, where the organic and aqueous are allowed to separate, similar to the way oil and water would separate after mixing them. Fresh material is continuously fed into the mixer, and a two continuous streams is removed from the settler (one organic, and one aqueous). The process is commonly used to process copper and uranium, but has recently been adapted for zinc, at Skorpion Zinc mine in Namibia.
It  just lengthens the intro without adding  much information in my opinion. It may  be good to put it under the industrial design section, but they wouldn't mesh as currently written. Chemeditor (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up intro

message: Wikipedia has an entry for each subject.  However, these two subjects are related, and somebody familiar with the subjects shoud insert references between the two articles.  The McCabe-Thiele diagram is used extensively to model solvent extraction efficiency, while the McCame-Thiele articles mentions only one use, that of distillation.  Liquid-liquid extraction should be mentioned in the McCabe-Thiele entry, while the McCabe-Thiele diagram should be mentioned in the liquid-liquid entry.  Thermbal (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. If you draft a section and reference it, I will help get it in the article.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between liquid-liquid extraction and the McCable-Thiele diagram 

message: The article is, on the whole, either original research, or it is cribbed without attribution from sources. When sources are provided, the article is bipolar—nearly all references are about extractive procedures involving metallurgy/hyrometallurgy, yet the thrust of the opening and substantial parts of the article (for the most part unreferenced) is about organic extractions. The reference list is similarly bipolar (in format and other ways). Nearly all of the references are from discouraged primary literature sources, but the level of the article presentation does not even approach simplest textbook or review article (secondary and tertiary sources). Bottom line, it is not at all encyclopedic, and appears to have received intermittent interjections from non-chemists/individuals with little or no formal chemical training. Further will be said after the broader array of article issues are identified, but in short, the article is not ready for use by anyone needing reliable, verifiable information on this subject (not even pre-bacchalureate). As a point of comparison, see the first entry in "Further information", by Karger.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In process of identifying major issues, prior to multiple issues tagging 

message: ...to "Further reading" section, and add a couple fop reliable references.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will move non-reflist (misformatted) references 

message: Added LLE as an accepted abbreviation for the title concept (e.g., used in the literature, in hyphenated modern LLE techniques, by the EPA, etc.).  Will provide a citation when I find a suitably general, authoritative secondary source.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding LLE as abbreviation 

message: …to move this toward being a more generally relevant article.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning to add balancing material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Liquid–liquid extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080309151803/http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/activity_rep/ar98/2370-vance.pdf to http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/activity_rep/ar98/2370-vance.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 05:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should this topic be merged with this?
--Carucela (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liquid–liquid extraction. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150929134303/http://modularprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Article-Liquid-LiquidExtraction-ChE-2004.pdf to http://modularprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Article-Liquid-LiquidExtraction-ChE-2004.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104224630/http://cognis.com/NR/rdonlyres/62A4BDA0-2B5F-4579-9761-968114B57A2A/0/thesolve.pdf to http://www.cognis.com/NR/rdonlyres/62A4BDA0-2B5F-4579-9761-968114B57A2A/0/thesolve.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liquid–liquid extraction. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100702074135/http://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/chemsep/extraction/ to http://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/chemsep/extraction/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Stripping (and other recovery/recycling processes?) are not treated very explicitly. It deserves some treatment albeit the process is often rather similar (but sometimes the product is e.g. precipitated).
More, and rather detailed, information on the chemistry, including active complex species, of typical extraction (and stripping) processes for various metals would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested extensions 

message: The opening line of this article is very likely to scare away any reasonable person.  I tried to read it, left immediately, and then returned only to make this comment...
: To wit:  "Liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), also known as solvent extraction and partitioning, is a method to separate compounds or metal complexes, based on their relative solubilities in two different immiscible liquids, usually water (polar) and an organic solvent (non-polar)."
I submit that the average person looking for a casual description of "LLE" will learn nothing here.  Is this really the purpose of an online encyclopedia?  I have been complaining about this topic for over a decade to little or no avail.  The authors and editors seem content to leave the technobabble and gibberish in place.  I can only guess at the motives, but I can see none, except that the person(s) writing this word salad simply like to write things to make themselves feel "smart".  
As for myself, I had to look elsewhere for a real definition, as I most often do these days.  I suspect that most others will do likewise.
Thank you, and Goodnight.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and try an edit. The encyclopedia is dynamic, and that is the practice of copy editing - if editors don't like what you write, someone else will try to make it more readable. Zefr (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly Confusing Gibberish