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.


From the article:

"The molinity unit is moles of solute per kg of solution. The formal is the same as the molal, but is used when it is not clear what a molecule of solute is, for instance metals and salts. It is one mole of the chemical formula per kilogram."

What on earth does this mean? "Molinity?" "Formal?" These definitions sound like utter gobbledegook to me. This needs clarification, and possibly some of this can be moved or copied to concentration too. -- FirstPrinciples 15:55, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I moved that stuff to concentration and added a link in the article. -- FirstPrinciples 06:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Molinity is not actually a word in chemistry--the word he is looking for [Alternative to Molinity] is Molality, which is represented as number of moles over kilograms of solution. - TrevorRC 23:32, May 15, 2006 (GMT)
This is incorrect. Molinity is a unit, albeit rarely-used. Molality is # moles solute per kilogram *solvent*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative meanings: Business and Information Technology?[edit]

  • In chemistry, a solution is a homogeneous mixture of one or more substances (the solutes) dissolved in another substance (the solvent).
  • In business, a solution is suspiciously similar to a product, only more expensive, and supplied by a partner instead of a supplier
      • More expensive? That's very subjective. I don't believe that is a valid point. A business solution could be cheaper or free (i.e. shareware). See my meager attempt at defining a Business Solution. I will attempt to refine this over the next few weeks.--Davidmarten223 12:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dilbertesques aside, are there enough solution providers in the IT world to warrant mentioning that use of the word? Ojw 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such definitions do not belong in an encyclopedia, especially when the word is so ill-conceived and dissembling that it probably doesn't even belong in a good dictionary. - Centrx 14:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Google search for this article's title - can you find the first search result which even mentions mixtures of substances? Ojw 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
That a certain word happens to be in vogue now has no bearing on whether there should be an article about these "solutions" in an encyclopedia. If you want to waste your time, try writing an article longer than a few sentences about it without having it all be redundant with other articles (where it should properly go) or be a list of vaguely similar usages and companies. The "business" usage isn't even a distinct definition, it's just another "particular instance or method of solving". There's nothing here more than a dictionary definition. - Centrx 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
A Solution has some very interesting simlarities to the Chemistry 'solution'. Since a product can be tangible or intangible, not both. The case could be made that a solution is a combination of these two types of product. This is a very important term which needs clarification within Information Technology. If you look at the definition of product, and Service then could you accept the definition of Business Solution? Take a look and let me know what you think. If this makes sense then a solution would be a combination of a service and one or more products. -- 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging Solution with Soluble and Solvent[edit]

Proposal: These three articles, Solution, Soluble, and Solvent, ought to be merged into one under the general article Solution, for they cover the same subject

First of all, English studies is a term for academic study of English literature, the latter being the actual subject, so this article is only separate insofar as it is about university departments and the form of the field, not the content, which really has nothing to do with the English language or English people.
English people really should not be a separate article. It ought to be integrated into Anglo-Saxons, and articles on English history, language, culture, religion, etc.
As English studies is not about the English and English people ought to be deleted with parts merged to many other articles, English language does not refer to the same concept. However, let's assume an argument of having separate articles for English language and English literature: While the English language was historically and mostly created in English literature, the English language as a subject is a construct that is only partially dependent on that literature. The words of the English language today are derived from the literatures of many countries and many peoples and the grammar can be formulated independently. If the two articles were English language and Literature in the English language, those articles would ought to be merged (and with other articles), for they are self-referential. The only commonality between all literature in the English language is that they use the English language, which would be defined in the English language, with the specific articles on each countries' literature, works, and authors.

A solvent is always a solvent insofar as it can be dissolved substances into solution. A substance is always soluble insofar as it can be dissolved into solution. These are the necessary definitions of these terms, they do not exist in chemistry outside of reference to solutions. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

and so repeat one another. Solvents and properties of solubility are intrinsically related to solutions: There cannot be a solution without a solvent and a solute that is soluble, the dissolution of which is described by properties of solubility; a solvent is a solvent only insofar as it dissolves a soluble solute into a solution according to properties of solubility; a substance is soluble only insofar is it is dissolvable by a solvent into a solution.

  • Your argument is fallacious- you say that because that they are similar and also intrinsically related they must be the same thing- this is clearly not true. One can't have English studies without the English language, and without the English people neither would exist. Yet these are also distinct concepts.Walkerma
They are not just similar and intrinsically related, they are necessarily interdependent and cannot be separated. A solvent is always and only a solvent insofar as it can dissolve other substances into solution. A substance is always and only soluble insofar as it can be dissolved into solution. The English language, however, is the English language insofar as it has ancestry in English literature. It is still the English language if it is used in South African literature, and if the words come from South African literature. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So, these words are tautological. Any possible rare topic that might not be appropriate for solution is more appropriate in articles like Chemical reaction or Acid-base reaction theories. - Centrx 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Solution and soluble are similar and may be merged. (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, just that it's possible.) However, solvent is vastly different, and (in my opinion) should not be merged with either. Solvent is more a discussion of properties of liquids and how they relate to their uses. There is obvious overlap with solution and soluble, but the difference is large enough not to warrant merging solvent. ~K 17:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It appears that all of the description of uses in solvent are related to organic solvents, and so that information might belong in an article organic solvents, if not just in the specific articles about each compound, as they seem to be in a class of their own. Other information in solvent is about solutions and solubility, and belongs in the single article about solutions. Exposition: The introductory paragraph can be safely divided into solution information and organic solvent applications information, which would go into the respective articles. The information in the sections Polarity, solubility, and miscibility and Protic and aprotic solvents is relevant to solutions generally and are appropriate for the solution article.
  • This is a repetition of the argument above. Of course they could be merged, just as the article on the English language & people could be merged, since they are on related topics. It does make a valid case that the merge is "do-able", but I don't think that is in dispute.Walkerma
I may have been inaccurate in my language. By "can" and "could" I implicitly mean that it is possible contingent on the purpose of an encyclopedia. I do not mean that it is merely possible to put the information on the same page, or possible without it being a complete non sequitur, but that the information in the articles is actually about the very same concept. The information in solvent is actually about solutions and solubility. In solvent, there is no more than a single definition sentence that would belong in solution or a dictionary, that is not about solutions, organic solvents specifically, certain chemicals specifically, very general density and boiling point information that applies to any chemical. English language and English people could not be wholly merged; there are small parts of English people that ought to be merged with English language, but the remainder clearly does not belong in English language. If these articles were appropriate for separate articles, there would at least be something substantial that it would not be possible to merge in an encyclopedia. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The sections Boiling point and, less so, Density are both about general properties common to many chemical compounds with information that is about very general characteristics of high and low boiling points and densities.

Explain this more thoroughly. If they are so especially pertinent to solvents, why is there no information there that is especially pertinent to solvents? If density is an important issue in liquid-liquid extraction, why would that pertinent information not go in liquid-liquid extraction instead of solvent? (and why is there nothing about density in liquid-liquid extraction?) Are these especially pertinent properties really pertinent to all solvents, or just pertinent to organic solvents and volatile organic solvents? - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Such information belongs in the articles boiling point and density, and the respective articles for the specific compounds. Despite the statement in the article to the contrary, for example, it is not a unique or "important" property of solvents that ones with low boiling point evaporate quickly at room temperature and ones with high boiling points require higher temperatures or air flow in order to evaporate more quickly.

  • Of course it is important, as anyone who has used a rotary evaporator will tell you! The focus here is often on empirical aspects, not theoretical. Your argument here seems to depend on the idea that unique means important - these words mean very different things. The properties you mention are not unique, but they are important to this topic.Walkerma
Density may be important to a rotary evaporator, in which case that important information ought to be in the article about the rotary evaporatory. That, however, ought to state something like "The rotary evaporator facilitates the evaporation of low-density solvents which rise above the denser liquid" instead of something like "Having a lower density than water means a substance is lighter water and so will separate on top of water. So, the rotary evaporator facilitates that rising of lighter solvents above the heavier liquid." Also, the article states that most organic solvents have a lower density than water, which indicates that this would be a property belonging in an article about organic solvents, not just any substance that dissolves another substance into solution. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The section on Chemical interactions belongs with the other information about solutions, and the sections on Safety and Properties table of common solvents clearly go in a section about organic solvents or in respective articles for specific compounds. Note also that some of the information I have here tagged as belong in solution is already in there, indicating its proper subject area and the redundancy in these articles. - Centrx 19:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, you shouldn't merge the articles. I think so especially because many people who don't know much about the topic often confuse "solution" with "solvent", and we know it's not the same. If we merge the articles, then we are gonna confuse people even more. Also, you have to consider that if you merge the three, there would have to be a lot of redirections, and that would be a mess. And the terms are not tautological. Each of the three terms represents something different.
Another thing you have to condider is that, if someone wants to link to, say, "solvent", then they wouldn't know beforehand that "solvent" redirects to "solution", and that would mean cleaning up every single redirection that would go through "solvent". Also, the articles are long enough, and when you have to scroll, and scroll, and scroll, the text gets less easy to read. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:10:35, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
1. If a reader does not know the distinction between a solution and a solvent, that distinction can easily be described in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence of the merged article; there is no need for different articles for every variant of a word, or every necessarily related element of a process.
2. The words represent different parts of the same processes and properties and are, as I have asserted, inextricable from each other such that they pertain to the same subject that is sufficiently wrapped up in itself that it is properly within a single article.
3. The redirect you mention of a user linking to solvent, which would then redirect to solution is seamless to the reader and does not necessitate fixing. As for the more consequential problem of double redirects, there might be a brief period where there are double redirects, but which, just as the single redirects, can easily be fixed as part of the merger so that there are none, and has no bearing on whether these pages cover the same subject and whether they ought to be merged.
4. The "mess" of a network of redirects is inconsequential in comparison to the mess of having multiple articles which cover the same subject, from which arises repetition and inconsistency.
5. The length of the resulting article has no bearing on whether the articles ought to be merged; this is an encyclopedia, which ought to contain a comprehensive review of a subject area. Note also that the resulting length, as you might have extrapolated it from the current length of the three articles, would be less the a simple sum of the current articles lengths, for the articles contain redundant information, a consequence of the reason for which they ought to be merged.
So, these objections are specially minor, and are irrelevant to the question of whether these articles ought to be merged. - Centrx 19:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a repetition of the original argument- "These are related, so they are the same thing." Also - the pages are only going to get longer- there are many things missing from them as it is.Walkerma
No, I have never asserted that they are merely "related". They are intrinsically, necessarily, inextricably related. As for length, integrating solvent and soluble will not be that great of an increase in length; most of the information is redundant and some would be merged into other articles entirely. Also, none of these articles are particularly long as it is. Regardless, what is the objection here? If the article is properly organized, the length does not affect a reader looking for specific information, they simply look at the first few paragraphs, or they link to the specific section they want. Even if all of the 3 articles were slapped together without deleting anything, and then doubled in size, the article would still be smaller than most featured articles, and that aggrandizement is not going to happen. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • why the articles should not merge.
      • solvent is all about the listed properties and classifications of solvents
      • solution has its own set of properties, extends to gases, solids (metals and polymers), impossible to reconcile with solvent.
      • soluble should perhaps merge with Solvation (describing the process) but not with solution
    • V8rik 21:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I have shown above how solvent can be reconciled with solution, for the parts of the article that are relevant to solvents, per se, are easily reconcilable with solution and the parts that are relevant to organic solvents or specific compounds belong in articles about organic solvents or about those specific compounds.
If you look at soluble, it can be entirely integrated into solution. The first paragraph is about solution information, co-relating solvent, solution, soluble, and solvation. The second paragraph is about solutions generally. The third paragraph is about properties of solubility, which fits with other information about solutions, but is not directly related to the process of solvation. The fourth paragraph contains information about solvents, information which is redundant with same information in solution and solvent. The fifth paragraph (single sentence) lists a few "common solvents" and is not specific to soluble. The sixth paragraph (single sentence) briefly defines immiscibility, information which is redundant with same information in solvent and not directly to the process of solvation. The seventh paragraph is about general information about solutions. - Centrx 19:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This argument says, "They can be merged, therefore they should be merged." I think it can be done, but we would lose a lot by doing so. Walkerma
These articles should not merge. These are such fundamental concepts in chemistry, with distinct differences of meaning, so they deserve separate pages. For example there are 207 pages that link to soluble- someone (presumably a novice in chemistry) clicking on that link shouldn't have to wade through a page on solvent dielectric constants just to find out what "soluble" means. We can by all means replace some sentences with links to reduce unnecessary duplication, but we need to keep the separate pages.Walkerma 05:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Why are these distinct concepts? I've indicated above why they are not distinct concepts appropriate for separate encyclopedia articles, and why the current articles are not distinct.
As I've also indicated above, the reader will not have to do any wading to discover what soluble means. The meaning can be quite easily given in the very first paragraph or even the very first sentence of a comprehensive article on solutions. Such a reader as you describe would find as much apprehensible information just as easily as if there were a separate article for soluble. Further, that there are currently many links to soluble has no bearing on whether there ought to be encyclopedia articles on both soluble and solution. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have articles for every word to give their definition.
Please read and address the justification I have given above. - Centrx 20:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have given a point by point rebuttal inserted into your argument above.Walkerma 06:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. Vsmith 03:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the argument is now clear- these topics are distinct and need separate pages. Four chemists and experienced Wikipedians (+ a fifth unknown) have all concluded the same thing. We should also keep the related pages solvation, solvation shell, and solubility_equilibrium which you didn't mention. I think the main thing to address now is to deal with those parts of the articles that are on the wrong page, and clear out unnecessary redundancy. There should of course be something about solvent & soluble on the solution page, etc, but not too much. Much of the content should be rewritten, but that is true of much of Wikipedia, and we only have so much time. I would suggest the following should be the emphases of the finished articles:
    • Solution — Types of solution, an overview of solution concentration & supersaturation with appropriate links, properties of solutions, colligative properties, etc.
    • Soluble — is a topic students of chemistry often ask about. Factors affecting whether things are soluble or insoluble - a concise solubility table would be a useful addition here to answer questions like, "Which metal carbonates are soluble?". Things like solvent polarity, "like dissolves like", solvation and so on, as well as coverage of Solubility constants and equilibria.
    • Solvent — Properties of solvents- polar vs non-polar, organic and inorganic, supercritical fluids, environmental aspects & VOCs, ionic liquids, solvent density and volatility and how this affects practical application, some commonly used solvents, uses for solvents (cleaning/degreasing, as reaction media, etc), safety (flammability, peroxides). Walkerma
No one has made any conclusions. You have been the only person who has responded at all, in the last ten days, to my explanation of why the responses were not accurate. Also, one of those users did not provide any argument at all, which is invalid in a discussion. If these commenters are apparently chemists, then they should be able to put information in the separate articles which clearly show why it should not be merged, because as it stands the information in the present articles ought to be merged. Without such additions (information which could also be mentioned here if they inexplicably didn't want to add it to the article), that they are chemists has little bearing on how information ought to be organized in an encyclopedia, or what constitutes a class. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that Walkerma's suggestions above are right on the money. Also, I think we've reached the point that we should agree to disagree. ~K 16:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I composed my reply in order to address Centrx's apparent frustration that people weren't addressing his specific arguments, and this necessitated my insertion of points inside the original text. If this layout is confusing, I will re-format it later. Walkerma 06:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not true. The "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" from which these results come is a "desk reference" and not the encyclopedia. A registered user searching the full Encyclopedia Britannica will find no distinct articles, but rather sections about solubility in articles about liquids and chemical compounds. Likewise, a search for solvent will return sections from articles on chemical reactions and acid-base reactions. A search for solution returns an separate article that is longer than the three articles here merged. - Centrx 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... don't know what happened to my previous post - edit comflict I guess. Anyway, I didn't go into any detail on my vote to not merge because I agreed with the arguements previously stated - and even better stated now. It seems a consensus has been reached to not merge. Given that, we should focus on improving the various articles rather than bluster on endlessly here. Vsmith 17:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the merge notice for solution and solvent and have modified the merge notice for soluble to reflect the consensus. Ancheta Wis 15:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

solvent should not be merged with either topic Anlace 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I restructured the article and removed the duplications resulting from the big merger. Note that I am doing this more than four years after the big merger. We have a huge quality problem with articles covering fundamental topics like this one. If an article has become too long and too messy, it is increasingly hard to find editors who have the necessary self-confidence to clean up the old stuff. -- Marie Poise (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Colloid - a homogenous or non-homogenous solution?[edit]

On this page (Solution) it is stated that:

"Solutions should be distinguished from non-homogeneous mixtures such as colloids and suspensions."

But if one follows the link to colloids it says that colloids are a homogenous mixture:

A Colloid or colloidal dispersion is a type of homogenous mixture.

Now, I am curious - what is correct? --Anna.h.bauer 09:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See this table:
Particle diameter
< 10-9 m 10-9 - 10-6 m > 10-6 m
homogenous mixture colloids non-homogeneous mixtures

<br.> <br.> <br.> <br.> <br.>

So colloids are intermediate between homogeneous and heterogeneous mixture, depending on the scale we misure the homogeneity. --Aushulz (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Solutions by weight or volume[edit]

Hi, I know next to nothing about chemistry. This page says there's a difference between making a solution by weight and volume. I don't really understand it, but it seems like it should be added. Also, I guess people should make that distinction more often when they talk about solutions? Or are they somehow equivalent? OptimistBen (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Something that should be added to the solution page is: what solutes dissolve when they are cooled and what solutes dissolve when they are warmed. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is currently on the Percentage solution page. I think would desierable to move that information onto the solution page. Grayob (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Concentration page also has this material on it. I have proposed (on the Solution talk page) to have the Percentage Solution page point to the concentration page to remove this redundency and improve clarity.

Contradition and problems concerning gas solutions[edit]

The table Examples of Solutions presents examples of solutions where a gas is the solvent. This contradicts one of the definition of a solution given at the top of the page though perhaps it could be argued that some gasses mix homogenously. More important though is the incorrect examples given for Liquid in Gas and Solid in Gas. Water vapor simply isn't a liquid, it is a gas. Similarly if Naphthalene sublimes then it is no longer a solid, it has also become a gas. I suggest simply removing the liquid and solid entries in the gas row from the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayob (talkcontribs) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and edit the main page to reflect this. I am also removing 'in any combination' from 'Many types of solutions exist, as solids, liquids and gases can be both solvent and solute, in any combination'.

I found another error in the Table. Aluminium is listed as an alloy which is incorect; it is an element. I will replace it with Bronze in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayob (talkcontribs) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and admit I don't have much experience in chemistry, but while reading this article and comparing it with the relevant chapter in my chemistry book (Modern Chemistry by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, published by Harcourt), I found some differences in the types of solutions. The following is the table from my textbook:

Solute state Solvent state Example
Gas Gas Oxygen in nitrogen
Gas Liquid Carbon dioxide in water
Liquid Gas Water in air
Liquid Liquid Alcohol in water
Liquid Solid Mercury in silver and tin (dental amalgam)
Solid Liquid Sugar in water
Solid Solid Copper in nickel (Monel™ alloy)

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Modern Chemistry. Austin, TX: Harcourt, 2005. 396. Print.
I'm aware that this table is incomplete, as far as hydrogen dissolving in solids for hydrogen storage, but I'm mainly referring to the row concerning liquid-in-gas solutions. Does water in a liquid phase really dissolve in air, or must it convert to the gaseous phase, water vapor, first? I'm inclined to say only water vapor truly dissolves in air, but, as I stated earlier, I don't have much experience with chemistry, and I may be incorrect. Could this be verified by someone? Mego (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: multiple solvents[edit]

"Usually, the substance present in a greater amount is considered as the solvent. Solutions may have multiple solvents." Sentence 1 explains the word "solvent". Sentence 2 says: the word "solvent" may also be used in contradiction to sentence 1, but we won't give details. Is "multiple solvents" a received notion ? Most often it seems to be used with the meaning "different solvents in different solutions". Unless someone explains a less trivial use of "multiple solvents" I will delete sentence 2. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9: Please Slow down ![edit]

Logger9, please slow down ! While we are stuck at Talk:Liquid discussing how to accomodate your profilic writing in an encyclopedic context, you are messing up the next article. What has the "Types of bonding" to do with "Properties of Solution" ?

Later, you write "Petroleum is a mixture of molecules like the one illustrated in this slide." Is this a hint on where your texts come from ? Just copies from a class you taught ? Which you now cut into segments and paste into Wikipedia, whether fitting or not ?

Your old friend (irony, you need not to comment) -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my last edit without explanation. Please do not drive us into another page block. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the page history and at the above discussion sections: This page is the result of merger. This explains why the contents is in part duplicate, in part contradictory. The article needs restructuring, elimination of redundancy, resolution of contradiction. This is certainly not the best moment for mass insertion of new material of doubtful relevance. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"composed of only one phase"[edit]

Isn't "composed of only one phase" redundant? That's part of the definition of homogeneous mixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)