Proposal to move

SPE is a method of chromatography - consider moving this information to chromatography information.

I would say there's enough content here to warrant a separate page, but I do find it strange that chromatography is only mentioned in the footer. Considering that SPE and LC/GC are basically different applications of the same techniques, I find it a bit weird that there's no mention of this. I'm not entirely sure where in the article this should be mentioned, though. - Alltat (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPE is not a method of chromatography, except in the broadest, simplest sense. It is an extractive technique, a solid-liquid extractive technique—taking advantage of large differences in the Keq of mixture components between the solid phase and the mobile phase resulting, for a well-designed and executed separation, in a bulk separation of one or more of the mixture components so that it is significantly enriched as a result of the rapid extractive procedure. Granted many of the adsorbents/materials are the same as in chromatographic methods, and when these materials are packed into long columns—such that the number of theoretical plates increases by orders of magnitude as a result—the same materials result in chromatographic separations of components with even small difference is their Keq between phases. Even so, grey line that it might be that divides SPE and chrom, the distinctives are clear enough to say that SPE is an extractive technique, with theory, procedures, and aims separate from chromatography, and so with a unique niche in modern chemical science. So, I strongly oppose any move, but (i) agree that the relationship to chromatography needs to be made clear in the article, and (ii) would note that I have other serious concerns about the article, see next section. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stole the above for the article, word for word. Seemed important enough to include in the article.--Flange DuBois (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issue tag added

...to make clear that deriving all content for this article, even at stub stage, from a single source is not acceptable practice at Wikipedia. That the single source is a commercial vendor of SPE materials makes it all the more unacceptable. Curiously, decent sources appear in the Further Reading. These and other high quality secondary sources (reviews, etc.) need to find their way into this article. That said, the content present is of decent quality—the company materials cited are good quality technical training and sales materials, from a reputable company. Hence, the outline of information and the content currently present are reasonable enough as a starting point (or I would have recommended for speedy deletion). The content is, however, gleaned by Supelco from published, verifiable literature, and that literature is what needs to be drawn upon and cited here. Otherwise, the lede is not really a lede, and needs to be separated into the lede and a separate further section (so the lead repeats and summarizes, rather than presenting singular, new material. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]