Talk:Titration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Color or colour?[edit]

Both are used in the article. This makes it look bad, while it's an otherwise rigorous writeup. Should I go through and flip all the occurances to color? Or to colour? I have no preferences, being neither British nor North-American.

From WP:MOS,
An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article. One way of presenting information may be as good as another, but consistency promotes clarity and cohesion in Wikipedia articles. Edits correcting deviations from written style guidelines should not be reverted.
Edits should not change a stable article from one guideline-defined style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so that goes beyond mere choice of style. For example, it is not productive to change from British to American spelling unless the article concerns an American topic. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
Since it would be tedious to find out which was used first, color or colour, I recommend that we just flip to the one that requires the least of corrections. Any objection by others should be useful. Aly89 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

half-equivalence point[edit]

I'm working on a lab, and there is a significance about the "half-equivalence point." I don't know what that means, and I am failing to find any information on it. Someone care to add in this information? Goldy496 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Half equivalence point is the point when half of the amount of OH- ions have been added to neutralize a weak acid. In this case, it means that pH = pKa, or mathematically speaking:

-log [H+] = -log[Ka]

Where [H+] is the concentration of H+ ions or Hydronium ions (H3O+) and Ka is the acid dissociation constant given by:

Ka = [H+][A-] / [HA]

I hope that helps. I'm not too sure as to where to put it though in the article. Tourskin 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


1. pH of an Acid: -log [H+] 2. pH of a Base: = [h+] [OH-] = 1 x 10-14

                                  [H+ ] = [[1 x 10-14]]
                                                           [OH-]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.31.253 (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 

nomenclature[edit]

Little problem with nomenclature: the endpoint and equivalence point are two different things during titration. The equivalence point is what was described in the article as end point. The end point however is the point where the indicator used for the titration changes color. It might or it might not coincide with the equivalence point -depending on the choice of indicator. Our best interest is, of course, is that the two are as close as possible to each other.


i want to know that why Potassium hydrogenphthalate can be used as a primary standard in volimetric analysis.

Because it stays pure. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


And why Commercial sodium hydroxide has low purity.

It reacts with carbon dioxide in the air Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also ,i want to know that why Potassium hydrogenphthalate solid should be dried in an oven at about 120'c before preparation

To get the water out. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


the titration curve[edit]

I can't figure out why the titration curve only shows 1 equivalence point (the calculated Ka happens to be the Ka2 given in my book, though) - citric acid should have three equivalence points, as it's triprotic...? Amphibious Poptart 05:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Should a triprotic acid be given as a standard curve? Surely the standard curves should be the monoprotic strong/weak combinations?


Your answer: I'm given to understand that MOST of the time experimentally, the titration curves of citric acid appear to be monoprotic because the dissociation constants are too close together to easily distinguish the proton receptor phases that correlate with the 3 different pKa's. The sigmoid curve for a multiprotic acid should show apparent "steps," but citric acid often fails to do that. 129.93.105.60 10:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Thought I'd add a comment


History of volumetric analysis[edit]

Volumetric analysis now redirects to this article. A former version of the volumetric analysis article contended that John Dalton had something to do with the early development of the technique. Anyone know more about this? --arkuat (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spectroscopy[edit]

What has spectroscopy to do with titration? It's listed under types. Is there such a type of titration? If so, please specify in the text, add some words. Bisco 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be used to detect the endpoint. I've added the info (and tried to clarify the different "types" in general). Jaeger5432 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

i am 115 and i need more info about titration for ma coursework and there is no any picture for da pipette

Its not called the end point

Remove how-to?[edit]

The sections on "Preparing a sample for titration" and "Procedure" both read pretty much like a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. I don't think they have to go entirely (a general description of the titration method is quite important, as I see it), but they definitely need rewriting. Unfortunately I haven't done chemistry for a while and it would probably be better for someone else to do, but if no-one comes in soon I'll give it a shot. Confusing Manifestation 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Not only is this written like a how-to, but it also uses the second person which is against the Manual of Style ("make sure that all of your glassware...", etc.). --Itub 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I decided not to touch the "Preparing ..." section since (a) it wasn't as much of a how-to as the "Procedure" section and (b) I'm not 100% sure how it should be cut down in any case. The "Procedure" could use a little more detail, perhaps, and I'd like a good citation or two in there if one can be found. Confusing Manifestation 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's better now, although perhaps some of the information you removed could be readded in an encyclopedic tone in a section about "sources of error" (parallax, bubbles, indicator error, adding too fast, insufficient stirring, etc.). --Itub 07:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the sample preparation section, having it read less like an instruction manual. I ommited information regarding sample dilutions and the need for an accurately calculated dilution factor. I shortened information regarding how a masking solution works, omitting weak binding principles. These should likely be moved to the masking agent page. Neonfuzz (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Titration curves[edit]

I've suggested we split this. It would warrant its own article would it not? There is plenty that can be said on the subject of titration curves, but to go into all the details here seems a bit much. Smaller articles such as equivalence point and any others floating around could also be merged into it. Richard001 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with splitting this. Shall I do it, or will you?Bless sins 17:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick note, here are a few pics floating around for it: Image:Oxalic acid titration2.png Image:Oxalic acid titration grid.png. I sent User:JWSchmidt some data I captured during a lab that he made those with, and there were other sets for strong acid-strong base, and weak acid-strong base curves if anyone wants to try to whip those up into a nice picture as well. -- atropos235 (blah blah, my past) 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If more information about it was added about it in the artical, more people might feel that it deserves its own artical. Tiddly Tom 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)



I second that. This article should be a treated as an indepent topic. Please do so if you can.


I third the motion.

Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

More on procedure?[edit]

More could be needed on procedures of a titrations, including the cleaning of burete and pipette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.163.251 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Different types of titration[edit]

You have taken this term for volumetric titration. However, there are other important types of titrations that are very different. For instance, Zeta potential titration. I do not want to modify your page without your opinion on this subject. I think that word TITRATION must be reserved for more general definition. More compact and general. With links to other types of titrations. For instance, your definition is mostly for VOLUMETERIC TITRATION. This text must be moved to that page. Page TITRATION must cotain only

  • general definition, similar to your but with comment that substance can be either in bulk or on surfaces for heterogeneous systems
  • list of indicators, including zeta potential, see page indicator
  • list of titration types with links to particular titrations

One more comment. Titrations can be done in non-aq solutions as well. User:AndreiDukhin October 23, 10:45 AM —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Titrations variations appropriate for the 'particular uses' section:

  • Kjeldahl method
  • Winkler Titration

Neonfuzz (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Concentration or Molarity?[edit]

Concentration under procedures has been changed to molarity.

Concentration is not the specific meaning of molarity as molarity is used in chemistry, not concentration.

The specific definition of molarity is In chemistry, molar concentration (also called molarity, amount concentration or substance concentration) is a measure of the concentration of a solute in a solution, or of any molecular, ionic, or atomic species in a given volume. as stated by wikipedia itself under "Molar Concentration."

Therefore, molarity is a measurement of concentration, concentration is not molarity.

It should not be revoked and changed back to concentration.

Thanks, 74.184.100.154 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

degrees in which system[edit]

There is a mention of a temperature of 60 degrees without reference to Celsius or Fahrenheit. Would Celsius be right? 69.181.211.33 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In this context, heating to 60 F doesn't make sense, so I fixed it to say 60 C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.49.174 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

what exaclty is thevolumetric analysis???? do we define it as titrations?? are they both exactly thesame things?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.95.118 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Back titration is an article stub, and the details could easily be included in the titration page, especially in the section already set aside for back titration. Neonfuzz (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Simplified Titration Formula[edit]

It seems to me that the titration formula could benefit from a side note showing how it is in fact a simplification of the stoichiometric process that could be used to arrive at the same answer. Showing the basic conversion process will show the casual user how the 'formula' works. That and I dislike unnecessary oversimplification, the basic process only has 3 conversions, really not rocket science, though it is vastly more explanative. --68.144.79.58 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Another use for the term[edit]

I'm Type II diabetic and have been taking Lantus insulin every morning for the last several years. Every now and then, for various reasons, my dose needs adjusting, usually up. My primary physician (actually a nurse practitioner) refers to the process of finding the proper new dose as titration. That is, I increase the dose by two units and watch my morning and evening blood glucose levels for three days. If they're not satisfactory, I add another two and try again. If adding a total of six units doesn't work, I'm expected to ask for further instructions, although in my case it's never happened. I don't know if this is a standard usage or not, but I'm recording it here in case somebody who knows more runs across it.JDZeff (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)