Talk:Lugol's iodine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this the stuff

thats a brown liquid, commonly used in school labs and is commonly reffered to as just iodine? Plugwash 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost - Iodine is I and KCl solved in ethanol, whereas Logol's iodine is in water. I'm not sure whether the propotions are similar or very different. Iodine can't (shouldn't) be ingested, whereas Lugol's iodine can, and has been used widely at least once (after Chernobyl).
YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.237.144 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content´s of Lugol´s Iodine.

Is the article right or wrong, saying "It consists of 10% iodine (I2) and 10% potassium iodide (KI) in 80% distilled water with..."?lokoploolp´s: " antiseptic introduced into medicine in 1829 by the French physician Jean Lugol. An effective bactericide and fungicide, Lugol's solution is a transparent brown liquid prepared by dissolving, first, 10 parts of potassium iodide, then 5 parts of iodine, in 85 parts of water. It is less irritating than iodine tincture (a solution in alcohol) when applied to open wounds." To the best of my knowledge the article should say: "It consists of 5% iodine (I2) and 10% potassium iodide (KI) in 85% distilled water with..."Studentroland 13:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Studentroland (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Will change the formula. SBHarris 03:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article states that Lugols was used at Chernobyl.

A check of the cite shows it as not Lugols, but SSKI, a supersaturated solution of potassium iodide, with no free iodine. This makes much more sense. I'm removing the reference and putting it in the SSKI article. SBHarris 03:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lugol's in thyroid storm

Somebody has added the idea that Lugol's can be used to treat thyroid storm (hyperthyroid emergency caused by other than thryoid ingestion). No, that's again confusing it with SSKI, the saturated potassium iodine solution with no free iodine. Free iodine is TOXIC. You'd never want to drink it in more than water purification amounts. The same confusion happened above with the Chernobyl case, where again it was SSKI, not Lugol's, that was used. Since we don't yet have a Wiki on SSKI (I'll do it as soon as I find a formula), I've ofloaded this SSKI info to the section in applications for potassium iodide. SBHarris 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm polish and I canm admit that in Poland there was used Lugol's iodine. I can give you references in polish. Lugol's iodine has only 1% of free iodine, maybe that amount is not toxic. A person who recomended that action (prof.Z.Jaworowski) pointed that using Lugol's iodine has no side-effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

smd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.120.157 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in an emergency, like a nuclear accident, yes. But free iodine, even in Lugol's, is not safe in certain concentrations and quantities. Yes, the dose makes the poison, but a 2-3 grams of free iodine (100-150 mL of 2% Lugol's) would presumably have severe toxicity, even lethality. 10 mL at 5% (representing about 500 mg free iodine) can burn mucosa in the stomach. [1]. Lower doses and concentrations would presumably present less hazard, but it's clear that Lugol's far more toxic than SSKI. The 2% Lugol's is 4% KI and so the 130 mg dose for nuclear protection would be about 25x0.13 = 3.25 mLs twice a day. This would deliver 200 mg free iodine with each dose, which is at the edge of toxicity (better if diluted) but presumably better than dying of thyroid cancer from radiation. SBHarris 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use in detecting gold

There are several sources which claim that Lugol's solution can be used to qualitatively detect gold in ore samples. If someone that knows more about this can confirm, it would be a neat tidbit to add to the article.

http://nevada-outback-gems.com/Prospecting_Basics/gold_field_test.htm http://www.prospectorsparadise.com/basment-blog/assaying-and-smelting.html http://books.google.com/books?id=l0EsAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA171&ots=QGCmch7Vsu&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q&f=false

96.240.171.249 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iodide preferred over Iodine?

The article currently states "However, pure potassium iodide, containing the relatively benign iodide ion without the more toxic elemental iodine, is strongly preferred for this purpose". Who says that? Why is there no source for this claim. The article of iodine itself speaks about it's "low toxicity", yet the sentence here makes it sound as if iodine if really toxic at should be pretty much avoided at all cost (the article clearly says that iodide is "strong preferred" afterall). When I think about the dosages that are used in some situations, this sentence reads like the usual "fear the iodine" that has been going on long enough. Add a source for such claims or remove them (or better yet: do not add them in the first place). --78.54.16.153 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think iodide is desired for ingestion, not I2 or I3-. The latter two are oxidizers. I believe iodide, I-, is used to saturate the thyroid for protection against fallout. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lugol's iodine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lugol's iodine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in citation given

Article now reads: Potassium iodide does not provide immediate protection but can be a component of a general strategy in a radiation emergency.[1]. I have added [failed verification], because the medline article certainly says no such thing. Elemental iodine is toxic and has no place in emergency treatment of radioiodine contamination, unless SSKI is not available (Lugol's was apparently used at Chernobyl as a second best alternative, see above). Instead, potassium iodide tablets (130 mg KI = 100 mg iodide) are the treatment of choice. This provides protection as "immediate" as is available from having the thyroid absorb [I-131]-iodide. The thyroid does not absorb elemental iodine. The Medline article specifically says iodine is NOT a component of a general strategy in a radiation emergency. This because (even as iodide) it only protects against I-131, and not other fission products or radioisotopes. SBHarris 03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Iodine." MedlinePlus.

Okay, just what IS Lugol's iodine?

I believe that the composition of the product should be part of the lede, but the closest I have gotten is the infobox which identifies Lugol's as KI3. It is in fact a solution in which approximately equal-molar amounts of KI and I2 are mixed in water so that the I3- ion can form, solubilizing the I2.

Shouldn't the lede of an article say what it is?

Instead I have been reverted twice, and a piece of trivia I've been trying to kill (namely, the price of Lugol's to the NHS, which reminds me of the price of tea in China) is reinserted into the lede instead. Does anybody really care what the NHS pays for Lugol's? How did this get to be an essential bit of information we cannot do without in the lead?

I solicit comments at this point, in order to avoid an unusually stupid edit war. SBHarris 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from reading the article that Lugol's Iodine is an aqueous solution of a 2:1 mixture of KI and I2 by weight. This would correspond to a 3:1 molar ratio (which makes sense as I− needs to be in excess). Perhaps this could be written as "Lugol's Iodine is a solution of KI/I2 (3:1) in water." IMO the details of the various concentrations/"strengths" are best left to the section on formulation. –Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just inserted that sentence now. –Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that looks good to me. SBHarris 04:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. @Mykhal:, I'd appreciate your input. How best do we explain what the preparation is, whilst staying out of unnecessary detail in the lead? I'm also uncomfortable with ambiguous fractions, but I felt the molar ratio was the way to go. In the meantime, I'm going to chance my arm and reinsert the material without the ratio. – Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tomásdearg92, when i undid the "KI/I
2 (3:1)" statement, I was not aware that it is the molar ratio accidentally almost exactly corresponding to the 2:1 mass ratio stated further in the recepture section of the article. However, it did not specify that it is molar ratio, so I tried to verify any mention of 3:1 mass ratio. E.g. Czech Pharmacopeia has 2.5:1 mass ratio in iodi solutio aquosa, however does not mention Lugol's name at all. Anyway, I think that we shuld not state literally 3:1 molar ratio, unless there is some reference confirming this stoichiometry is optimal in any way. Finally, this old pharpacopeia of London confirms the 2:1 mass ratio, however it also states that Lugol's solution in fact is NOT (any) Lugol's solution :) —Mykhal (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This image is fine. I have no interest in seeing companies edit war over which brand to use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lugol%27s_iodine"