Talk:Filter (chemistry)

I restored the links to various kinds of filters because

1. water is a chemical, and water filters are important in chemistry;
2. those filters are used for other chemicals as well;
3. this is the likely path that a reader will follow to ge to those pages.

Jorge Stolfi 04:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Citation

I can't find a citation for "filtrand".--Shakujo 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't need a specific citation, it's a general term when used in this way. If you do a simple web search you should find that it's been used in patents, technical journals, etc. I'll see if I can find a more difinitive source to site, though. -- Bfesser 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm german-speaking and Chemistry master. 'Filtrand' is imho uncommon and sounds German to me, the proper english might be 'filtrant'? Anyway, I like the synonym 'retentate' (and its counterpart 'permeate') better, since it is more descriptive and less confusing than filtrate/filtrant. --83.76.128.23 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "retentate" with "filter" gives more Google hits than "filtrand" with "filter". I am adding it as an alternative. On the other hand "filtrant" does not seem popular (most hits are in French where filtrant is an adjactive "filtrating"). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As an English-speaking/Canadian chemist (MSC, PhD candidate), I can say that filtrate/residue is by far the most common terminology I have encountered. -Amanda 142.103.143.113 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest rename of article

The chemistry part of the article name is IMHO misleading. Note that I'm not native in English, neither an chemical/process engineer. However, the described effect is not based on chemical reactions and should not be described as a chemistry-topic, but rather as a process engineering or even physics topic. The filter action is usually based on mechanical processes. I suggest rename to Filter (process engineering). If no complaint, I'll do the rename myself in a few weeks. User:Nillerdk (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. While filters generally use only physical processes, they are widely used in chemistry. On the other hand, many filters are not specifically "engineering". I thought of "filter (technical)" or "filter (technology)". But neither seems much better than "filter (chemistry)". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter media section is duplicate in Filtration page

I would suggest to remove the Filter (chemistry)#Filter media section that is identical to Filtration#Filter media.

Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be completed or removed.

Myops (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove the section, I suggest that you add a link to the correct section of the filtration page. A radical idea would be to merge this entire page with Filtration, but I'm not convinced it's the right action to take. I'll fix your other query, as that half sentence just makes no sense. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of moving the entire article to Filtration is right. There has been hardly any action on this page for more than a year except vandalism and revert. More than half of this article is duplicate into the filtration article and transferring the remaining valuable part will not add too much length. I have added the banner on top of both articles to suggest the merging. Let's wait for discussion. --MyopsToo (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to move the entire article to Filtration. I think that there is some material--certainly involving an expansion of the current introduction--that could serve as a separate article on filters. It is not clear that there's enough content for a whole article on chemistry-related funnels, though; significant development could happen in biology/biochemistry-related filters as well. Perhaps some content could be combined with the page Filter funnel? I don't have time to add much now, but I'll add in a bit so you can see what I'm thinking. I'm not sure what to do with the filter media section, though. Shanata (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know the filter funnel article existed! I don't see why this article shouldn't remain (in a cleaned-up, stripped out form) in the category Laboratory Equipment. However, I wouldn't expand the article - an article doesn't have to be long to be good, and I can't think of any information that could be added that would be directly relevent. However, if Shanata wants to prove me wrong, I'm open to ideas! Wikiwayman (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)