Talk:Partition coefficient/Archive 1

Table or graph of typical logPs
As an illustration to the article, it could be useful to have a table or graph of the logPs of some typical substances in various solvents, especially octanol/water. The wikipedia articles of many substances cite their partition coefficients or logPs, but it may be difficult to interpret the numbers if you have nothing to compare with. --Eddi (Talk) 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Picture
It would be nice if the first sentence or two gave a lay definition and explained what log P is used for, for those of us who can't make out the rest of the entry. Thanks! 63.249.105.132 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the introduction and hopefully the second paragraph of the current intro puts things in better perspective.Boghog2 12:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

why we use 0.1m sodium thiosulphate in organic layer(chloroform) and 0.01m sodium thiosulphate in aqueous layer (water) in determination of the partition coefficent of iodine between water and chloroform —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.28.227 (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about gas/liquid partition coefficient
The second sentence says
 * The terms "gas/liquid partition coefficient" and "air/water partition coefficient" are sometimes used for dimensionless forms of the Henry's law constant.

Is this intended to be a special case of the more general definition given earlier, or is it intended to alert the reader of an alternative definition that some authors use? In the latter case, how much of the rest of the article applies to this alternative definition? AxelBoldt (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. The most general definition of a partition coefficient is the ratio of concentration of a compound between two phases.  The phases may be two immiscible solvents, gas and solvent, two solids, etc.  On the other hand, most of the article deals with the partitioning of a compound between two immiscible solvents.  The lead should probably be rewritten to start off with the most general definition followed by the most frequently used defintion.  Boghog (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Earth Sciences
Under applications, this article could use a section on the use of partition coefficients in the Earth sciences, namely mineralogy, geochemistry, and petrology. Partition coefficients are widely used to understand how elements fractionate between phases, thereby helping to elucidate processes that have affected/produced geological materials (e.g., rocks, magmas). (Luke, August 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.108.192 (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

logD and logP vs log D and log P
I added 'logD' and 'logP' (no space) as a search for 'logD' in wikipedia does not turn up 'log D'. As I read in literature, no space, 'logD' and 'logP' are preferred. January2009 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Shake flask content moved here as an example of the egregious ongoing status of the article
The following text is moved here, because it is completely unsourced, and is otherwise at a student-level of understanding of the scope and rigor of the field: The classical and most reliable method of log P determination is the shake-flask method, which consists of dissolving some of the solute in question in a volume of octanol and water, then measuring the concentration of the solute in each solvent. The most common method of measuring the distribution of the solute is by UV/VIS spectroscopy. There are a number of pros and cons to this method:

Pros:
 * Most accurate method
 * Accurate for broadest range of solutes (neutral and charged compounds applicable)
 * Chemical structure does not have to be known beforehand.

Cons:
 * Time-consuming (>30 minutes per sample)
 * Octanol and water must be premixed and equilibrated (takes at least 24 hours to equilibrate)
 * Complete solubility must be attained, and it can be difficult to detect small amounts of undissolved material.
 * The concentration vs. UV-Vis response must be linear over the solute's concentration range. (See Beer-Lambert law)
 * If the compound is extremely lipophilic or hydrophilic, the concentration in one of the phases will be exceedingly small, and thus difficult to quantify.
 * Relative to chromatographic methods, large amounts of material are required.

As an alternative to UV/VIS spectroscopy other methods can be used to measure the distribution, one of the best is to use a carrier free radiotracer. In this method (which is well suited for the study of the extraction of metals) a known amount of a radioactive material is added to one of the phases. The two phases are then brought into contact and mixed until equilibrium has been reached. Then the two phases are separated before the radioactivity in each phase is measured. Using an energy dispersive detector (such as a high purity germanium detector) allows the use of several different radioactive metals at once, whereas the simpler gamma ray detectors only allow one radioactive element to be used in the sample.

If the volume of both of the phases are the same then the math is very simple.

For a hypothetical solute (S)

D or P = radioactivity of the organic phase / radioactivity of the aqueous phase

D or P = [Sorganic]/[Saqueous]

In such an experiment using a carrier free radioisotope the solvent loading is very small, hence the results are different from those obtained when the concentration of the solute is very high. A disadvantage of the carrier free radioisotope experiment is that the solute can adsorb to the surfaces of the glass (or plastic) equipment or at the interface between the two phases. To guard against this the mass balance should be calculated.

This material should only be returned if a source is found that reproduces the content in its entirety (in which case a plagiarism has been averted). or if another set of sources is found against which it can be checked for scope and rigour (in which it becomes the new editor's rigourous composition).

An example of the inanity of this section was the presentation of a sep funnel as a shake flask (in the context of the assumption that a novice would look at the cluttered picture and make the conceptual leaps from bench synthetic organic chemistry to the specialized area of careful determination of physicochemical properties, e.g., see here).

It is simply unacceptable for one to type their class notes into Wikipedia, or otherwise derive large blocks of content unattributed to expert sources. This article is awash with this, and the course must be reversed.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename page to Partition Constant(?) and redirect from Partition Coefficient as the term is considered obsolete.
> 'The phrase "partition coefficient" is now considered obsolete by IUPAC, and "partition constant", "partition ratio", or "distribution ratio" are all more appropriate terms that should be used.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmin (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think this page should not be renamed. Despite the IUPAC recommendation, partition coefficient – 1,270,000 hits continues to be far more widely used than either partition ratio – 136,000 hits or distribution ratio – 204,000 hits. Boghog (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that it should not be renamed (for the reasons Boghog states), and support the appearance of the officially approved synonyms. In this case, it will be a long time before they become standard, and even longer before the literature appears uniform, so deeply rooted are current forms. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Equations
I think it would be good to make the equations general, i.e remove the term octanol and replace it with e.g. solvent. Daccy (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  But not until the move toward source-based editing begins. To replace one set unsourced editor opinions for another is to waste time and misconceive the project. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Also please note
Also please note that the under construction template says If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with in use during the active editing session. Hence I have violate no Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I stand corrected. I thank you for this addition to my Wiki-markup education. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

logX versus log X issue
Could someone who knows how search within wikipedia is indexed, ensure that the concern of User:January2009 remains met? The article needs to represent the parameters with the space, consistently, and my concern is that in making the article consistent, we have removed a critical search element. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Boghog (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Without discussion, I do not understand the standard to which you are working. After your edits, both logP and log P, and both logD and log D seem to make appearances. Discuss here—which way do you want this to go? Otherwise, the point of asking was to see if there is hidden metadata that includes variants that allow for search, that do not appear in the article. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please insert an opening graphic into your article
Boghog, since you will not discuss what is wrong with the use of an example to open an article, and since you clearly perceive you are >85:15 in any co-editing venture we happen to engage upon. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see this article,, for a case where three image examples of a narrow physical manifestation of a broad physical phenomenon open an article. Please see this article, , for a case where, rather than anything more generic, an example of a compound class was used to represent the class. This is example-representing-class-to-open-article. Please see this article, , for a case where an unrelated, but relevant table appears in the lede. This is a case of subtopic-data-opening-article. Please see the article, , for a case where an image of a specific application opens. This is example-representing-method. I will, with time find even broader cases of applications and examples opening articles. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is—and there could, should I care, be hundreds more examples—that there is no sacrosanct orthopraxis at Wikipedia, that says an example of an application of a concept cannot open an article. As you reject the image, why not just say, "I want, and will have the [my] article open my way?  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Lipophilic versus hydro philic phobic
This is a matter of debate among experts, and we simply need to decide how we stand. Early versions of the article used the two, almost interchangeably. The Bog edits have moved it toward hydrophobicity as the term of choice. Which shall it be? And when will it appropriate to use both? I have been schooled that while there is general interchangeability, there is technical nuance that allows some molecules to enter lipid phases based on characteristics that are unimportant in their distribution between two disorganized liquid phases. I have no opinion on this, I simply want a source-based decision to which I can adhere. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no debate about this. Lipophilic ("water-loving") is the exact opposite of hydrophilic ("water-fearing"). They cannot be used interchangeably because they are diametrically opposed. Boghog (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith, and presume mistyping when it is obvious. See corrected section title, then re-read the question. The juxtaposition is "hydrophobic" vs. "lipophilic", which would have been clear to most congenial professional readers, despite the mistyping in the Section title. After all these years… Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lipophilic is a synonym of hydrophobic and the two can be used interchangeably. I do not understand what the problem is. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree with you, and there is not problem. Which do you prefer? And as I said, I have sat in room with some experts that have argued that while they correlate, highly, there can be nuances for some molecules, in relation to insertion in lipid bilayers, versus partition between disordered phases. If you have never seen or been party to such, fine. I believe i saw such in one of the reviews you placed, as well, and will try to find it for you. I am not looking to argue nuance, I am looking to be consistent with what you prefer here. (Lipophilic was rampant earlier, and you seem to have been introducing hydrophobic.) Consistent can be good for readers. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the review article that you found and posted, which makes a distinction between the two terms on its opening page. I knew I had seen this old argument more recently…  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree consistency is a good thing and I have no strong opinion on whether we use lipophilic or hydrophobic. My suggestion is that we mention both early in the article and then settle on one. Also it would be not appropriate to include esoteric discussions on the differences between lipophilic and hydrophobic in this article. Boghog (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your source, your article, your call. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If the statements made at your Talk page
Regarding my incompetence are rescinded, I thank you. If not, I forgive, regardless. Again, happy holiday. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good sources on physical pharmacy
See p. 97ff (e.g., p. 100ff) [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0763757349?keywords=0763757349&qid=1458576683&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1 here], and p. 182-196 (e.g., p. 192ff) [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0781797667?keywords=Martin's%20Physical%20Pharmacy%20%26%20pharmaceutical%20sciences&qid=1458578315&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1 here]. Sorry Amazon, off work VPN for the week. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sep tunnel image
Replace this as soon as possible. I hardly fits here. An immediate better sep funnel image would be uncluttered, and so needing less of a legend. See here for an example of a better modern image. Don't remove explanation until testing replacement with a naive reader. This legend was composed with/for secondary students. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sofixit What we need a public domain image. I agree that the existing image is not ideal, but it does get the general idea across.  Boghog (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough with the sofixit. Were it simply done, it would have been. The Talk section is created in case others have more direct access to such images for upload. Keep it gracious, please. Mercy can be new every morning. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This simply is not how things work. The issue is not direct access to uploads, but rather copyright. Unless you have permission to convert a copyrighted image to a public domain image, it cannot be uploaded, full stop.  You are welcome to create your own image using PowerPoint or some other program. Boghog (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per usual, you have assumed ignorance where there is none. Were I in direct contact with folks doing shake-tube experiments, I would ask them to take a few iPhone picture and send then to me. I would then sort through, find one that corresponds to a good secondary source, pick it, label, and upload, describing and citing the source. However, I no longer work so closely along side folks that actually measure values.


 * Bottom line, the issue is not direct access to photos suitable for upload—at least that is what I was talking about, which two others have understood well enough to email possible names of folks with pictures. (The issue is no copyright, as you suggest, and the rest you lecture us on is also not germane.) Stop the embarrassing misunderstood replies (not to mention slight-of-hand ones). Slow down, and ask yourself, am I sure I understand what is being said. Your cock-assuredness leads you repeatedly to miss simple, relatively clear points. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead
There have been a number of recent bold edits that have in my option have seriously degraded the readability of this article. Hence I have selectively reverted some of those edits. Please discuss here before reinserting. Boghog (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been nothing selective about your edits. You removed the entirety of several hours of edits, in one bulk revert to a former version of yours. Moreover, this redoes an even earlier bulk reversion, of 4kB of even more work. This is simply a strategy to accomplish the same in smaller blocks. While this is to a degree more thoughtful, it is a very small degree.


 * Finally, I would note, you did not discuss your first, or second carte blanche reversions of the same text, before doing them.


 * In the first case, the Edit summary is off point—the first did far more than reorder the one section that you eventually expressed objection to—and in the second case, it is insubstantial, saying simply "good grief" (as if to say, what is this pesky, insubstantial creature doing irritating us). You are now, with this "Please discuss here before reinserting," simply trying to muddle what you have done, and shift the onus of responsibility. Bottom line, I ''have explained thoroughly my edits, in Talk and in edit summaries, and you have not. And I generally do prior to making large changes, when I perceive there is substantial ongoing interest in the article, where again, you do not.


 * So I have reverted again, because THERE IS VALUE IN THE EDITS YOU REVERT. In part, a minor point appears with equations, the article is equation-based, yet an equation for the principle connect does not present an equation. Stop game playing. Discuss your third attempt at bulk reversion, before undoing hours of work of another editor, on a 1:1 vote. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting before undoing years of work. Again, your edits have seriously degraded the readability of this article. Please remember we are writing for a broad audience. Boghog (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added one paragraph, which does not undo years of work, You have carte blanche removed hours of work on the thin excuse of "degrad[ing] the readability of this article." This is an opinion, and it is 1 to 1. The lede is not unreadable for the work, except to one who wishes full control over an article. Let's elevate to an admin, to review your choices today. I will not begin to catalog for you the myriads of physicochemical articles that are more technical than this. But I will do so for an Admin. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, the leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). Boghog (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)re
 * I added one paragraph – false. There were four paragraphs before you edit and four after. You made changes to all the paragraphs. I will not begin to catalog for you the myriads of physicochemical articles. Good luck with that. You have completely forgotten who we are writing for. We are writting for a broad audience and therefore the lead should be kept dead simple.   Boghog (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your nitpicking would be humorous if not so ridiculously time wasting. Yes, changes to all, but most to the ONE paragraph, the first one. But, at least you admit there was nothing of value in any edit. Oh Lord. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respond to these principle changes to the first paragraph, the foremost of that changed, indicating what makes it overly technical:
 * Specifically, in the alterations to the opening paragraph, that moved it away from being yours, the majority of added content made it more general rather than less, and all is based on content in the article, and so is offered in keeping with WP:LEAD. Adding—
 * "biological sciences" makes the lede more accurate to the rest of the article,
 * moving "water-loving" and "water-fearing" up from your version makes the opening paragraph less technical,
 * "Because of the range of values observed, the coefficients are typically expressed as logarithms, log P and log D, respectively." is not at all unclear, or unnecessary, as it summarizes repeating content of the article,
 * "Both log P and log D are understood to describe the difference in solubility of the compound in the two phases," was already there,
 * "log P to describe the hydrophobicity (and lipophilicity) of the compound" was added, is absolutely accurate, and is not any more technical than the preceding statement, and contains wikilinks to boot,
 * "the parameters can be measured experimentally in various ways (by shake-flask, HPLC, etc.) or estimated via calculation based on a variety of methods (fragment-based, atom-based, etc.)" summarizes the article, and is not overly technical, moving the lead closer to being stand-alone as the policy, WP:LEAD, requires.


 * The only added element that is technical, is one appearance of a simple equation, in the paragraph—note that many, many ledes have equations—that is even more to the point of the article, and simpler than a further, later appearing equation. This simple log P = log ([A]org/[A]aq-form of equation is both fully explained, and no more complicated than many others appearing in basic chemistry articles.


 * Please respond, to what in particular do you object? Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And to what other specific changes than those cataloged here do you object? I will not prompt you further, as you will just rush off to fix and muddle the issue. Onus is on you to say what was wrong with paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. What specifically is wrong?
 * I cataloged the changes to paragraph 1. Respond to those, and to any others you see as making things over technical. Stop relying on personal interpretations of policies without sufficient concrete examples to justify carte blanche reversion. Vagueness only serves as an argument to keep your prose unchanged, because you want it. How do my changes not summarize the article, per WP:LEAD? How is this article more technical than other chem articles that have equations in the lead? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically bad organization throughout the entire lead which make it hard to follow, even for someone who understands the subject. A general audience will be completely lost. More specifically:
 * The coefficients are typically expressed as logarithms, log P and log D, respectively. – why is this the second sentence in the lead? Remove it.
 * Equation in the third sentence. Does not belong there. Remove it.
 * whose properties are relevant to physiological applications – weasel words, which application?
 * akin in its properties to biological lipid phases – simplify
 * measured or computationally estimated in research and development contexts – gobbledygook
 * Partition coefficients can also be defined between liquids and solids – lacks context for why this is important. Boghog (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Will look to on return from gymnastics meet. I would note again your repeated use of the imperative. Of what in particular do you perceive you are emperor? Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version of the lead is tripping over itself in wordy definitions. For example "understood to describe". Why not just write "describe"? The lead should be written in a way that can be understood by a wide audience. Using a readability server to estimate ease of reading, the previous version of the lead had a Flesch–Kincaid score of 33.6 (college level, difficult to read).  The version of the lead had a score of 28.1 (college graduate, very difficult to read. Best understood by university graduates.)  What we should be aiming for is high school level (F-K score > 50).  We are going in the wrong direction. Boghog (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then fix such things without being imperious. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have fixed things, and despite arguing WP:BRD, have simply placed a further bold edit in place of a prior one. You are free to do so, and I am free to revert and call attention to the misapplication of the policy reference, and continued pattern of imposed, and imperious writing at articles where other experts also have interest. As for reference to the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests, please let me know where this has made its way into WP policy. I had not been aware that it had. The matter of the general dumbing of discourse with the the American public, e.g., through the retirement of even two syllable words, is a wholly separate matter and issue. The pressing matter is your imperious editing, and whether you actually will compromise. No more responses from me here. Cheers. 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature section
I split out the nomenclature section from the lead since thought it was too detailed. Beyond short definitions, the lead should not contain anything that is not discussed in the body of the article. Hence I believe this material really belongs in its own section. I have also added the point that despite IUPAC recommendations, the term partition coefficient is still widely used in the literature backed up with a source to support that statement. Boghog (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur that the IUPAC statements can be downplayed, and that they should not appear in the lead if not summarizing the main body. I think it may be useful to make clear in the lede that the article is following the very common, even uniform use of the title term, and so departs from IUPAC. Otherwise, I do not think removal of the IUPAC content, as an aim to undercut other argued needs for equations in the lede, is justified. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested compromise lead
Bellow is a suggested compromise between the old and new lead. After splitting out the nomenclature section, the current lead as a K-F readability score of 29.1 (college graduate) whereas the suggested lead below has a K-F score of 40.5 (college level)

In the physical sciences, a partition-coefficient (P) or distribution-coefficient (D) is the ratio of concentrations of a compound in a mixture of two immiscible phases at equilibrium. Hence these coefficients measure the difference in solubility of the compound between the two phases.

In the chemical and pharmaceutical sciences, both phases usually are solvents. Most commonly, one of the solvents is water while the second is hydrophobic such as 1-octanol. Hence the partition coefficient measures how hydrophilic ("water-loving") or hydrophobic ("water-fearing") a chemical substance is. Partition coefficients are useful in estimating the distribution of drugs within the body. Hydrophobic drugs with high octanol/water partition coefficients are mainly distributed to hydrophobic areas such as lipid bilayers of cells. Conversely hydrophilic drugs (low octanol/water partition coefficients) are found in mainly in aqueous regions such as blood serum.

If one of the solvents is a gas and the other a liquid, the "gas/liquid partition coefficient" is the same as the dimensionless form of the Henry's law constant. For example, the blood/gas partition coefficient of a general anesthetic measures how easily the anesthetic passes from gas to blood. Partition coefficients can also be defined when one of the phases is solid, for instance, when one phase is a molten metal and the second is a solid metal, or when both phases are solids. The partitioning of a substance into a solid results in a solid solution.

Partition coefficients can be measured experimentally in various ways (by shake-flask, HPLC, etc.) or estimated via calculation based on a variety of methods (fragment-based, atom-based, etc.).

Again, what I am trying to accomplish is to make the lead as easy to read as possible. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am taking you at your word, that this is a discussion and that you seek compromise, hence the reverted lede. A compromise is not imposed without contributing, prior discussion. (A proposal is not still a proposal if it is implemented, nor is it a suggestion any longer. And the definition of compromise, everywhere, is something akin to "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute." The foremost thing I want is your ceasing to be imperious in the science articles in which you have taken interest.)


 * In short, one does not unilaterally impose a compromise, and so, if the lede remains wholly yours without prior discussion, you are not committed to compromise.


 * Let me know if you want to proceed collegially, or imperially. I had begun to respond very positively to this turn of events and process, until I noticed that the proposal/suggestion/compromise was undercut by its imposition.


 * Otherwise, revert, and make clear you cannot operate in a truly collaborative manner. Happy holiday. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As already mentioned above, WP:BRD states leave the article in the condition it was in before the contested Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). You made a bold edit, I reverted.  Now it is time to discuss. Boghog (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you did not, you made a further bold edit, and then, imperiously and in violation of the very policies you self-servingly quote, put your bold edit in place. MDR.  Have some respect for the ability of others to observe and discern.  50.179.252.14 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. I restored the lead to the status quo ante in this edit and this edit and in violation of WP:BRD your reverted respectively in this edit and this edit. I then made an attempt at compromise in this edit, while making changes is much closer to the status quo ante that to the version you restored in this edit. If you prefer, we can restore to the earlier version.  Boghog (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To say I then made an attempt at compromise... while making changes… is to make clear that the overall result of your recent editing of the lead, taken together, in toto, beginning after I left the lede in the longer form I worked on—that the overall result of your several reversions and edits was not a status quo ante reversion. Period. Stop obfuscating. Break it up, argue it how you will, the lede was not returned to an earlier version, but to a new one of your making. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You violated WP:BRD. Full stop. Again, if you prefer, we can restore to the earlier version. Boghog (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether this is a status quo ante or not: Here is the equivalent of a diff, showing that this is not a version of the lede to an earlier state, but a new lede of this editor's composition: see here versus here. 340 versus 270 words, 3 refs versus 6 references, etc. Not a status quo ante reversion, but a newly composed edit from one editor, imposed without discussion, under the guise of a WP:BRD action. An imperious edit, and smoke being blown to justify. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What you are implying is that your bold edits are OK an mine are not OK. Boghog (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I am simply stating that your reversion was not a status quo ante reversion, and so your intent does not appear to be return of the text to a specific prior state and to enter into discussion. Rather, your goal seems clearly to be to keep the lede as you have composed it, both during, and as far as I can tell, after the discussion. Good luck with that. Life is short. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And by the way, your new opening sentence comes in at a F-K score of 20, and we both know what that is supposed to mean (worse than the whole, and the prior, based on your vein of argument). Moreover, by this measure, deleting water-loving and water-fearing from the second sentence of the second paragraph would improve the readability. (Don't get me wrong, no objection to those; I was the one who moved those expressions higher in the lede.) Conclusion: The F-K assessment and similar can be simplistically applied, and in your hands seem only to be a way for you to attempt to objectivize your getting the way you have imposed. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And the F-K score of your lead sentence is -11. Pretty impressive. You have set a new incomprehensibility record. Boghog (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for substantial replies to substantial points made. The F-K test is yours, not mine, not policy mandated, and as I made clear, not necessarily a good test of the direction of editing. Reply to substance, with substance. Snide is for children. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did way above and you have not responded to my responses. F-K test is not infallible nor is it policy. However such low scores strongly suggest a problem. Remember we are writing for a general audience, not chemistry graduate students. Boghog (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no answers my significant questions, or to the immediately pressing question at hand—whether you will discuss, rather than imperiously imposing your will.

Here is the lede, immediate prior to my edit:. To move it back here would be a status quo ante edit. To discuss changes before editing would be an Easter miracle. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did respond and at least one of the points (parameters can be measured or estimated) was addressed in the compromise version. And for the third time, we can restore to the earlier version that you linked above if you prefer. Boghog (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Point by point response:


 * "biological sciences" makes the lede more accurate to the rest of the article,
 * covered in third sentence of both the original and compromise version
 * moving "water-loving" and "water-fearing" up from your version makes the opening paragraph less technical
 * Makes the opening sentence too complicated and too narrow. Better to start with the a basic definition and then explain why it is significant.  Try to do both in a single sentence is impractical and in fact trying to do so makes the sentence almost unreadable.
 * "Because of the range of values observed, the coefficients are typically expressed as logarithms, log P and log D, respectively." is not at all unclear, or unnecessary, as it summarizes repeating content of the article,
 * The lead need to be kept simple. The logarithms are not fundamental to understand the concept of partition coefficients. This could be mentioned later, but not in the first paragraph of the lead. This is a technical article and we need to introduce new concepts one at a time so that the reader is not overwhelmed.
 * "Both log P and log D are understood to describe the difference in solubility of the compound in the two phases," was already there,
 * Not sure what you mean by this.
 * "log P to describe the hydrophobicity (and lipophilicity) of the compound" was added, is absolutely accurate, and is not any more technical than the preceding statement, and contains wikilinks to boot,
 * "the parameters can be measured experimentally in various ways (by shake-flask, HPLC, etc.) or estimated via calculation based on a variety of methods (fragment-based, atom-based, etc.)" summarizes the article, and is not overly technical, moving the lead closer to being stand-alone as the policy, WP:LEAD, requires.
 * Added to compromise version. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added to compromise version. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say to these, until the reversion to status up matter is settle. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I provided the link to the last version before my edits. The lead will need to be pasted in, from it, to the current document. I leave it for you to do. I reverted your lede reversion, the next step is yours. If you call a return to  this a return to status quo, I will not argue with you.  50.179.252.14 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With lead returned to status quo
Starting from the reversion to status quo ante, the discussion can begin. Now, if you want to—if we can concur on this—you can just paste in your better, later "If one of the solvents is a gas…" paragraph, replacing the earlier, except—

Until discussed further, I ask three further changes:
 * 1) Find an appropriate point in the main body text, to place this same or a comparable bolus of revised material, so that the lede summarizes the article, as required. (At the same time you can leave the references there, in the main body, as they are now unneeded in the lede.)
 * 2) Remove the Henry's Law prose from the lede, as this is clearly a technical bit of jargon better fitting with the main body. Suffice it to say, that when it is a gas-liquid partition, a modified expression, for the gas-liq partition coefficient applies (and then go on to your anesthetic example). Leaving the Henry in unexplained is confusing, and going to the WP article will allay no one's confusion. (This is not my area, but it also seems confusing that Ostwald would not mentioned.)
 * 3) Add a  at the very end of the lead and in-article paragraphs (or add a citation), so that the solid-solution sentence will become sourced (as wIkilinks are specifically stated as not satisfying WP:VERIFY). This may be as simple as repeating an earlier citation, I do not know.

So, starting from the reversion to status quo ante, you can make the swap to your newer paragraph version, and these edits, if you wish, with my full agreement. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I would note that the reverted IP edit, regarding how the sep funnel is held
…is a point well taken. This may be the best available image, but it was and remains (now with this added reason) to still be a poor one for this article, where shake tubes/flasks would be a much better illustration. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)