Talk:Karl Fischer titration

Discussion page·4 threads·1 archive

This is the discussion page for the article Karl Fischer titration. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.

Cysteine interference needs a source

Tagged {{cn}} on the free-cysteine claim in §Interferences. The general thiol interference is well documented in Scholz, but I cannot find a source that specifically demonstrates it for a cysteine-bearing peptide at the concentrations involved. If nobody can produce one, the sentence should be generalised to thiols and the peptide-specific inference removed. — — CitationChaser (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The inference is chemically sound but it is still an inference, which is exactly what Project:No original research tells us not to publish. I would support generalising it. — — KarlFischerKit (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree with generalising. Leaving the tag in place for now so that the question stays visible. — — Chromatokid (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Loss on drying into this articleMerge proposal

Merge proposal. A merge has been proposed below. Length alone is not a merge argument; the question is whether the two subjects are distinguishable in the sources.

Merge proposal. Loss on drying is short and is discussed here anyway. Propose merging it as a subsection of §Relationship to other methods. — — MergeMorwenna (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. They are different measurements with different compendial chapters and different failure modes, and loss on drying is cited independently from several articles. Short is not the same as non-notable. — — EndotoxinEd (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose — and the merge would also break the category structure, since loss on drying sits under Category:Analytical methods on its own merits. Better outcome is to expand it. — — ParentCatPansy (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn in favour of expansion. I will take a pass at Loss on drying myself. — — MergeMorwenna (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Should the mass-balance table give ranges or single figures?Done

The mass-balance table gives ranges, which makes the worked example look arbitrary — a reader cannot tell whether 5.2% water is typical or unusual. Would a "typical" column alongside the range help? — — PlainNumbersPip (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ranges are the honest presentation; a "typical" column would imply a central tendency we have not measured. The example already states its own figures. I would leave it. — — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Annie: a "typical" column would assert a central tendency nobody here has measured. Closing with no change. ✓ Done — — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.

This page was last edited on 20 April 2026, by Ref_Desk_Ron. Text is available under the PeptidePedia Wiki Content Licence (PPCL-BY-SA 4.0).