Talk:Electrophoresis

Image Problems
(1) The images chosen for this article are fine choices in terms of content. However, the blue striped background makes the text unreadable. Could some knowledgeable individual either alter the images to correct the problem, or find replacements (more likely)? --SteelSoul (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

- I really don't think vandalism is the issue here. That's a legitimate caption. Focus on bigger things. 216.186.72.169 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

big problem intro
pretty sure quote "spatially uniform electric field" ia just wrong eg there are gradient field methods dispersed particles is a jargon phrase not suitable for general audience molecules that are not macromolecules are separated see dionex and that isjust the intro

Merge Pages?
Woah, someone changed this from a redirect. I inserted a disambiguation page on gel electrophoresis a while back (Electrophoresis (disambiguation)). I guess I'll have to move that here now and change the other pages to properly reflect these pages as they are now (linking them together). I didn't know there were so many different electrophoresis pages. This is just a reminder to myself to do it later. Nathan J. Yoder 22:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll see in the history that I added a whole paragraph then withdrawn it. As a molecular biologist, I initially didn't acknowledged the difference between Gel Electrophoresis and Electrophoresis. I think that the agarose section in this page is a duplication of the gel electrophoresis page and that this page should be linked from the latter. Christian Blouin November 13th 2005.

Added an derivation of the $$\mu$$ in ideal solutions. Without this, the equations at the bottom of the page didn't made much sense for a non-expert. --Bongotastic 13:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to write Coulomb's Law here, not Lorentz force. Lorentz is usually understood as movement of charged particles in a magnetic field. Of Course it's technically correct to write F=q(E+v*B) and set B=0 but F=q*E is simply Coulomb's law using the E-Field (on the Coulomb's law page at the bottom)

May I draw the attention to the wiki page Electrical mobility. It may be sound to: (a) take the good parts of the Electrophoretic mobility article (especially the equations) to the more general Electrical mobility article; (b) redirect "Electrophoretic mobility" to Electrophoresis; (c) add a link in the Electrophoresis article toward the general definition of Electrical mobility. Ileresolu 14:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's a good idea. The electrical mobility article is a stub of undefined importance, and has few incoming links, whereas this article has been classified as high importance and has quite a few incoming links.  — DIV (128.250.204.118 05:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Hard reading
This article needs a clear introduction. --smadge1 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence "Generally, electrophoresis is..." should at least be moved to the front; might provide better point from which to exact better organization from than we see currently also.

This article needs a clear EVERYTHING. It also lacks an applications section. This article should remove mathematical explanations to below any application section and the first explanation should be done with as little math as possible, preferably by someone who can actually explain things non-mathematically. Crusty007 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

no to applications section - that is in the links, to broad for this articleCinnamon colbert (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Electrophoresis Retardation Force
The wording of this term offends me. Can't we change this? 216.186.72.169 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. To use a word like this in a precise and appropriate technical sense is to effectively and sensibly rehabilitate it from vulgar corruption, rather than capriciously amputating a unique token of the language in deference to the zeitgeist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.245.179 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting some parts of article to state from 2007?
I think that this article is in focused only on electrophoresis of particles. There is nothing about ions, which I think is most common use nowadays (DNA, peptides etc.). In my opinion on "mathematical" part of article lacks elementary equations (e.g. Coulomb force). Most of those things was already in article but were removed during edit in 2007. Maybe it would be good for this article to revert big part of it? Also is there any reason for placing 6 references for one quite simple sentence (first one in article)? I think that references should be placed for authentication (1-2 is enough) and ease of finding materials for further investigation (most important sources). What is purpose for placing there lots of materials about colloids and not about electrophoresis (especially book about ultrasound characterisation of colloids written by person who added this reference). I rather don't want to do such serious edit without assuring that this will be useful so please let me know what you think. Marcinj (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

needs attention from a specialist
eg see review by Viovy in Rev Modern Physics, and Dorfman, Rev Modern Physics, Oct 2010 page 2903. I'm not sure, but I think the theory section is sort of half right; the most important point is that at steady state velocity = electric force/friction, and that calculating this can be easy (rigid spheres in aq salt) or really,really complex (long DNA molecules in agarose gels)Cinnamon colbert (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

too technical, strange reasoning, not enough explanation
I have some very basic questions: --Nanite (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What determines the direction of electrophoresis, and under what conditions is it zero? Namely, does the electrophoresis effect vanish for neutral charged particles (i.e. zero total internal charge), or for surface-neutral particles (zero surface charge), or is it more complex than this? The article suggests that only surface charge matters but I doubt that somehow.
 * Isn't the surface charge of the particle also modified by being placed into solution, for chemical reasons? I mean that its surface charge will be different in vacuum than in solution, no? The article seems to imply that it is just the fluid's reaction to the particle's presence.
 * Can I just think about this as the motion of a particle + clinging fluid inside a frictional fluid, electrically driven according to the total charge of that particle + clinging fluid combination? If so, it might be a good idea to explain this quickly in the introduction.
 * What is the actual "theory of Smoluchowski"? Only a formula is given and that is useless unless there is accompanying explanation about what sort of ideas and approximations Smoluchowski used when deriving the formula. (for contrast see Drude model)

Cataphoresis Now!
Cataphoresis redirects to this page, but it is only mentioned as a cation type of electrophoresis, nothing more.

The explanations of the molecular processes need to be simplified (if that is posssible), and the article needs better mention of cataphoresis, as that process is merely mentioned, whereas it's a common anticorrosion treatment for steel. I don't know enough about these processes to add the information myself.--Centrepull (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"ionophoresis" redirects here but is not defined or mentioned
Equinox ◑ 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Incipit
"Electrophoresis (from the Greek "ηλεκτροφόρηση" meaning "to bear electrons")": this is neogreek, not classical greek, which the discoverer most probably intended. In ancient (classical) greek it should be -ϕόρησις, instead of -φόρηση.--93.147.230.238 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Patrizio