Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizzy extraction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzy extraction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too soon for an article. It is as yet unknown how influential this will be or whether it will be known by this name. The paper was published in August and has yet has to be cited in any other published paper. There are no secondary sources in the literature. The second reference in the article is to a news article/interview in Chemical & Engineering News. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should not be deleted. There are two references. The second one is independent of the inventor. Certainly, the concept is new but modern chemistry is developing much faster than other disciplines or even chemistry one century ago. If the name of the technique is changed later, then the article can be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.33.52 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A little light on secondary sources, but it seems to be useful information to people interested in the subject.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically just sparging assisted headspace GC, both of which are very common. I suppose it could be merged into one of these pages but it's such a niche example it would probably fall foul of WP:UNDUE. To be honest it probably falls foul of several policies. Just delete it. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fizzy extraction involves two steps: dissolving the carrier gas, and the release of semivolatiles due to effervescence - very different than sparging. Moreover, fizzy extraction has not been used with GC according to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say its very different. To me it seems very similar to the "purge-closed loop" system used in GCMS: you use a gas to displace the volatiles from a liquid and then you analyse the gas. The technique has been around for over 30 years, it's pretty standard kit for environmental monitoring.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked a reference on "purge-closed loop" (Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. (1984) 32:429-438). In this method, one passes a gas through liquid sample to displace the volatiles (as you mention), then traps the gas-phase analytes in a sampling loop. Thus, it seems to be a different technique because there is no saturation step (the carrier gas is not dissolved in the sample under elevated pressure), and there is no effervescence step. Effervescence leads to a sudden release of volatile compounds producing a high signal. Sparging the sample cannot produce a high signal if the analyte is at a low concentration. That is why the released analytes need to be trapped in the sampling loop in the purge-closed loop technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.