Talk:Enantiomeric excess

ER vs ee

My impression is that ee is being supplamented by er, which has a more direct thermodynamic meaning and is now recommended by organic chemistry community.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have yet to see it in use in organic chemistry articles. V8rik (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which community? I think I missed the memo. ;-) I still see plenty of papers using ee in 2007, and I don't remember ever seeing one using er. Just because someone wrote and article criticizing ee, doesn't mean that people will actually stop using it. There is a lot of inertia and network effects, not to mention the relatively little gain with the change. --Itub (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, not many people do this. The er thing was just something that stuck in my mind. And I have zero interest in fighting inertia or becoming a reformer of the way it should be" which we see too much of already in these pages.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• ~Interestingly I came across this article:

Are Oxazolidinones Really Unproductive, Parasitic Species in Proline Catalysis? - Thoughts and Experiments Pointing to an Alternative View Helvetica Chimica Acta Volume 90, Issue 3, Date: March 2007, Pages: 425-471 Dieter Seebach, Albert K. Beck, D. Michael Badine, Michael Limbach, Albert Eschenmoser, Adi M. Treasurywala, Reinhard Hobi, Walter Prikoszovich, Bernard Linder doi:10.1002/hlca.200790050

from which I can quote two organic chemistry big guns:

er = enantiomer ratio; we do strongly favor the abandonment of the old-fashioned term ee

So there is still hope! V8rik (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with smokefoot on this one, attitudes certainly seem to be moving towards er, but perhaps more importantly it's much easier to understand for a non-chemist! surely this is the most important thing?
  • The current JACS & Org Let asap abstracts show both being used (more ee's on JACS, the same equal numbers on OL). Notable use of er by Bill Roush & Ben List, and ee by Trost. Far from settled Seansheep (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC). edited: Seansheep (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Chemical intuition or chemical institution? Nature Chemistry Volume 4, Issue 4, Date: April 2012, Pages: 237–238, Author: Bruce C. Gibb doi:10.1038/nchem.1307 makes a number of strong arguments for e.r. over e.e. Perhaps it warrants at least equal treatment? Enantiomeric ratio redirects readers here, but currently it is only mentioned in the middle of one paragraph; admittedly, e.r. is more easily explained. Loresayer (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Too technical

I was looking to see what "optically pure" means and was redirected to this article. Unfortunately I'm am no clearer than I was before as the article is totally incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't studied chemistry. According to wp:what wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook

"A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."

I realise that this is a fairly technical subject but could someone please add a lead paragraph that explains what the article is about in layman's terms, and a simple explanation of what is mean't by the term "optically pure"? Richerman (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have added some links for clarification but overall I feel the article is in good shape. I simply disagree with this Wikipedia guideline, there are 11000 articles in chemistry space but I do not see why in every one of them the concept of chemistry should be explained again. The internal linking in my view is THE principle feature of Wikipedia and if they did not exist I would not be a editor V8rik (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting explaining the concept of chemistry, but restructuring the article slightly, and giving some more explanations, to make it more accessible. I've had a go at it myself - see what you think. Richerman (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read your edit but I still disagree. basically you are establishing again what exactly an enantiomer is while this already is taken care of at the enantiomer page. Duplication of information should be avoided V8rik (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest including this page somewhere, its a very useful guide and the least confusing I've found http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/350/Carey5th/useful/optpure.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.242.10 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)