From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Boron has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
March 16, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Boron is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Boron at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

"Boron the Moron"?[edit]

It is interesting to note that unlike the other elements, boron's chemical reactions don't necessarily tend toward filling the outermost electron shell with eight electrons. "Boron the Moron" is a nice mnemonic to use to remember this. I believe it is the only element that violates the octet rule - even the group 14 elements will fill their outer shell with eight electrons by ionizing or making covalent bonds. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is certainly not the only element that violates the octet rule! Consider BeF2, NO, PCl5, and SF6, for example. Even the common aluminium violates it sometimes. The octet rule is just a rule of thumb and isn't followed much when you get beyond the elements most often studied at the level when the octet rule is useful. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember - just because it loses electrons instead of gaining them doesn't mean it is ignoble! BeF2 is an salt involving the Be2+ ion, and that ion has an electron configuration of 1s2, the same configuration of noble helium. Perhaps I should have said "noble" instead of "octet", because elements 3 and 4 tend to lose their outermost electrons to have a 1s2 electron configuration, which is still noble because no 1p orbitals exist. Also, NO is an intermediate and quickly undergoes chemical reactions that make the nitrogen atom noble (e.g. 2 NO + O2 → 2 NO2). As for PCl5, I can't argue with you there; that does in fact violate the nobility rule. Perhaps you would like to tell me when aluminum violates the octet/noble rule? Kyoobur9000 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
AlCl3, which is actually a molecule (well, a dimer)? (BeF2 isn't completely ionic either, which you can read about on beryllium, fluorine and beryllium fluoride.) Also AlI, which is even more obvious. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
More octet violations: H3PO4, ClF3, XeF2, IF7, IBr5. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Can't argue with those last five or AlI. I am currently reading up on the first two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyoobur9000 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


11B is also a candidate as a fuel for aneutronic fusion. When struck by a proton of about 500 keV, it produces three alpha particles and 8.7 MeV of energy.

5P + 6N add 1P → 3 alpha particles (3 x 2P+2N) + energy. This sounds like fission to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just had the same conversation elsewhere. Our conclusion? 'Aneutronic fusion' avoids the word 'fission'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all Fusion is Fission and all Fission is Fusion. "Classic Fission": 235Uranium fuses with a neutron to give a high energy state of 236U, which being unstable it (18% of the time) gives of a (few MeV) gamma ray becoming low energy 236U or (82% of the time) it undergoes Spontaneous Fission (breaks up) into two smaller (unequal) pieces and neutrons. "Classic Fusion": two Deuterium (2Hydrogen) fuse to form 4He + many MeV of energy, rarely emitting the energy as a gamma ray but usually fissions to a 3He and a neutron. 10Boron fuses with a neutron but the resulting high energy 11Boron fissions into 4He (alpha particle) and 7Lithium. If 10B fuses with Deuterium (same as 11B plus proton) you get a high energy state of 12Carbon (unstable, again rarely emitting the energy directly) which splits the energy betwee an Alpha (4He, highest stability [binding energy] until Oxygen) and 8Be, which has a higher energy than 2 4He, so that splits into two. Shjacks45 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On novelty of gamma-Boron[edit]

Comparison of X-ray diffraction patterns by group-1 (top) and Wentorf (bottom). Details are in the picture file

A certain individual, using multiple sockpuppets is trying to push through a statement that gamma-Boron was discovered in 2007 by group-1 and results plagiarized by group-2. This discussion should be closed in favor of third party (Wentorf) who has synthesized this phase back in 1965. This fact is acknowledged by group-2 and neglected by group-1. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option to to cite a reliable secondary source. We should avoid citing primary sources whenever there is a controversy like this since we are not a place to resolve such controversies. The primary purpose of referencing in Wikipedia is to assist in verifiability. Beyond that, let somebody else work through issues of priority and credit. --mav (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion of gamma-B is mislead by NIMSOffice[edit]

The phase diagram reproduced here comes from our paper - Oganov et al. (Nature 2009), but NIMSOffice incorrectly gives references to lots of papers to diminish credit to Oganov's Nature paper. Discussion of chemical bonding in gamma-B is also wrong - our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009) explicitly stated that the bonding is "partially ionic" (or, equivalently, and also explicitly stated "polar covalent"). There is conclusive evidence supporting this picture. Therefore, the phase is both ionic and covalent - as shown by us. There is nothing novel in a covalent bonding in an element, but a significantly ionic bonding was unexpected for an element. That was a big surprise. This page is closed for editing, so I cannot correct these mistakes. I suggest the editors put the following text: "Gamma-B is peculiar from the chemical viewpoint in that its bonding is not purely covalent, but contains a significant ionic component. This is the only so far known elemental phase that has a significant ionic fraction of chemical bonding (Oganov et al., 2009)".

Note - my investigation shows that NIMSOffice is directly involved in the controversy on discovery of gamma-boron and is either a coauthor of the Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaya-Dubrovinsky-Filinchuk papers, or their collaborator on other papers.

I suggest an investigation on the identity of NIMSOffice, who in my opinion should be banned from editing Wikipedia for vandalism and pushing a personal agenda.

Artem R. Oganov

It's hard to argue with NIMSOffice (now I think he calls himself Materialscientist). He does not have good arguments, just insistence. I am surprised why he needs this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

please correct mistakes[edit]

Phase diagram of boron[1]

1. Phase diagram of boron is taken from our work (Ref. 11), but credit is not given. Most of the phase equilibrium lines on this diagram were calculated by me, the rest were constrained by our experiments, previous experiments and our calculations. To construct this diagram we used information that comes 90% from our own data and 10% from previous works, and this diagram only appeared in our work (Ref. 11).

2. Discovery of gamma-B should include Ref. 11 and probably Ref. 10. Ref. 12 should be deleted from the "discovering" papers, since it was done much later (submission 2 years after Ref.12) and not independently from Ref. 11 (see

3. Sentence "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]." does not make sense - the phase is mixed ionic-covalent and I suggest the following text instead:

Chemical bonding in gamma-B has been described [11] as mixed ionic-covalent. Significant ionicity is unexpected for a pure element, but it has been shown that some effects characteristic of ionic crystals (e.g. the LO-TO splitting) are present in gamma-B

The phase diagram has been removed from the article and a notice of dispute has been added to that section. I'll start reading my references on boron to get up to speed and report back. --mav (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Although adding the citations to the caption in this article will be useful (and maybe satisfy the orginal creators), the primary requirment is that the source information should be on the image page. That also allows as many sources as needed to be added in greater detail, as has been done AFAIK, there is no more legal requirment for attribution, as the attribution is on the trancluded image page.YobMod 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Started a artcle on Allotropes of boron .--Stone (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?[edit]

Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Quite a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article on Boron.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is quite a comprehensive article with a wide-ranging scope, so I'm awarding GA-status. I think that there is scope for slightly expanding the article and I discuss these below; however their lack is not sufficient to cause me to withhold GA-status nor for putting the WP:GAN On Hold - after all GAs can nearly "always" be improved.

However, the pdf version of reference 70 is flagged as a {deadlink}: the link to the pdf file should be either corrected or removed.

Possible improvements:

  • There is no mention of boron hydrides; however diborane is mentioned, but not as a hydride.
  • There is no mention of organoboron compounds; however the use of Triethylborane is mentioned, but not as an organoboron compound.
  • No mention of Tourmaline mineral group.

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


The article says boric acid in reactor water is slowly filtered out. Doesn't it dissolve in the water, in which case, how could it be removed by filtration? Unfree (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading through Google books on that I realize that "filtering" here is a simplification of a complex process, which involves ion-exchange resins and multi-stage evaporators. No mistake though. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I seem to vaguely recall reading once that the colour of absolutely pure boron was uncertain (due to the difficulty of preparing it) and that the conventional black/brown colour may be due to impurities. The article doesn't seem to mention this; have I remembered incorrectly? (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The article mentions the band gaps, which correspond to a deep-red/brown color (pure boron). Impurity might easily change that to black, gray, but not lighter color. This situation is more annoying in silicon carbide, which should be colorless or yellowish when pure, but in reality is usually gray, green or brown. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "enriched"[edit]

To the lay(ish) reader (me) this bit confused me at first.

Given that we are talking about B10 and B11 to use the word enriched boron for B10 and depleted boron for B11 is counter-intuitive with out a close read of the article and even then some might miss it. At first read I am thinking how can 10 be greater than 11?

IE we are talking about a process that alters the natural abundances of the two isotopes.

To talk about 'enriched' boron is also a bit silly, can it be humored as well?

Seeing as this page is "semi protected" I suggest changing the title

Enriched boron (boron-10)


Boron Enrichment

As what this section is really talking about is not just boron BUT really a process for the purpose of producing a product for either the nuclear industry or the space industry.

IT may then be possible to combine the two sections (ie Enriched boron (boron-10) and Depleted boron (boron-11) with a discussion of the direction of enrichment of the different isotopes for different end uses.

You can then link off to Isotopic Separation (which I note used to be Isotopic Enrichment - maybe the same discussion was had?)

And really, why would you call it Depleted boron (B11) when it is the most abundant isotope as stated in the article! Another potentially misleading use of the word depleted for the lay reader?

What you are saying is that the isotope used in these space applications (B11)is the product that remains after the B10 has been removed. Now 'enriched', surely?

Really, ask yourself the question which one we would call enriched and depleted if the first use of Boron was spacecraft and not nuclear reactors? And there are currently more spacecraft than nuclear reactors anyway....

IF NEEDED maybe state that B10 is commonly referred to in the Nuclear Industry as enriched Boron.

Thats what Id do... then this article might be worth its 'accolades'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

U-238 (depleted uranium) is the more common isotope. It's depleted because what we want to use (enriched uranium, U-235) isn't in it. It's the same thing for B-10 and B-11. Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Two Questions[edit]

1. How IS Boron enriched?

2. Can it exist in a liquid form? JeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I have read an article, where it is done by column chromatography. Several hundred meter long columns.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1. enrichment--Stone (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2. As a element, yes, but only above the melting point of 2349 K,  2076°C. There are several chemical compounds of boron which are liquid.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't remember by heart how it is done with boron, but most pure semiconductors are enriched by growing them from an isotopically enriched compound - not by directly enriching the pure form. For example, enriched germane/silane/methane for germanium/Si/diamond. Same should be for boron. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right it is not enriched in pure, but as compound. A column chromatography at 2000°C would be challenging, but not economic.--Stone (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Miss-Identified Mineral picture[edit]

The picture in the Characteristics section under occurrence is improperly identified, as it displays the mineral "Tincalconite after Borax" and not actually borax as it is labeled. This miss-identification is common but is not correct. "Tincalconite is a mineral that is closely related to and often intimately associated with the mineral borax. Most old mineral specimens of borax are chalky white due to a chemical reaction from dehydration. They have actually altered (at least on their surface and ultimately throughout) to the mineral tincalconite with the loss of water molecules. This kind of alteration from one mineral to another, can leave the shape of the original crystal intact. Mineralogists refer to this as a pseudomorph, or "false shape", because the tincalconite has the crystal shape of the predeceasing borax. Most all specimens of borax in museums and collections should technically be labeled "Tincalconite" or even more accurately "Tincalconite after Borax". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please explain why this picture is of tincalconite and not borax? We don't know its age, and the surface doesn't seem to show any water-related erosion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

+4 Oxidation State[edit]

Boron can form compounds whose formal oxidation state is not three, such as B(IV) in boron carbide BC. What does it mean? If so, we may be able to obtain a helium compound very easily because it has only 2 protons and so the 2S electrons will be much less tightly bound!--Anoop.m (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The formula for boron carbide is B4C. Your question assumes facts not in evidence. SBHarris 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

B(IV) is mentioned several times in the article - I believe this is a mistake. [B(OH)4], for example, contains B(III), but the article implies it is B(IV).

Ben (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The only evidence for B(IV) in the article is BC in the infobox. The recently added unreferenced part on B(IV) has to be fixed or removed - oxidation state IV does not derive from coordination IV. We don't say Cd has oxidation state IV only because it forms zincblende CdS. Charged species don't count here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, you're both right. Coordination number 4 with oxygen remains oxidation +3 so long as there's a formal -1 charge on the boron (the fourth bond is a coordinate bond). So both B(OH)3 and B(OH)4- are boron (III) = +3. The oxygens are always -2 and the oxidation number of the boron has to make the ion charge come out to what it is. All the borons in tetraborate are +3 also: there we have 9 oxygens (-18), 4 hydrogens (+4), and 2 negative charges, which leaves us +12 for the 4 borons, which gives them +3 each. Wups. I'll fix this.

The oxidation number for MgB2 is wrong also. The borons bonding to each other have no oxidation state. The only electrons are lost from the magnesium, one per boron, so the formal oxidation state for B is -1 in that compound. If we assign nitrogen -3 in BN compounds, the boron is always +3 in these various structures also. That leaves me with no +4.

Ideas are welcome about what do do with BC compounds. B4C isn't quite stoichiometric anyway, as noted. If it were, and carbon were assigned +4, the boron would come out -1 as in MgB2 again. But I'm not sure it's fair to assign carbon as the electropositive element here, any more than to choose boron as electronegative in all the hydrides, which are analogous to hydrocarbons. What do you think? SBHarris 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the BC molecule. As to B4C, it is a complex lattice with B12 icosahedra connected by carbon chains. There is an "explanation" here (doi:10.1039/b618493f) why it is non-stoichiometric, and I am just reading it. Anyway, the structure of B4C seems uncertain and can hardly indicate B(IV) state. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the icosahedra are fascinating, and these compounds go up to B(6.5)C stoichiometrically. They should be neat things to make 10B containing composites for spacecraft with maximum B-10-enriched-boron per structural weight. I don't know of any BC molecules except as isolated gases or free radical trapped in argon. BC. would be a free radical, and BC: with the extra electron would have a negative charge. There should be a compound HCB, rather like HCN:, except the electrons in the sigma lobe of HCN: would be missing in HCB, due to boron's smaller charge by 2. In all cases the bond order is about 3, but (again) I'm not sure how to assign C or B as the negative or positive here (they are nearly the same electronegativity), so the oxidation state of the B is a mystery to me. I guess it's either +3 or -3. If you must have your carbon negative, then the B is still +3. And yes, B(+IV) was my mistake. I admit it! Moving on... SBHarris 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

boron is not a plant nutrient[edit]

"Boron is an essential plant nutrient"? Plants can do not eat boron because these element does not dissolve in water. Plants consume boron in dissolvable formes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This makes me sad. — raekyT 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
By this argument, iodine and iron are not an essential nutrients either, since we do not drink iodine solutions, nor do we eat rust for the iron. This is a nonsensical argument.—Tetracube (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the article is not really informative[edit]

Very many questions of interest to the ordinary reader are not there. What is the etymology of the word "boron"? Not many people may perhaps know that Burack was the name of the white horse of Prophet Mohamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? That fact is relevant only if it had something to do with boron. Did he name the horse for borax, or is the word borax from the same color as the horse? Is this a general Arabic or Persian stem/root for "white"? In which case Mohamed just named his horse "Whitey", which is a boring bit of trivia that might belong in the article on the prophet, but not here. We're not a madrasah. The article states, as is:

The name boron originates from the Arabic word بورق buraq or the Persian word بوره burah;[2] which are names for the mineral borax.[3]

SBHarris 21:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Former use as a food additive and health implications[edit]

What about the use of Borax as a food preservative, it was very common at one time - THE USE OF BORIC ACID AND ITS SALTS AS FOOD PRESERVATIVES.(1902) The Heinz food company funded Harvey Washington Wiley and his campaign against Borax Pure ketchup: a history of America's national condiment, with recipes

I'm not sure boron is so harmless Experimental Study on the Estrogen-Like Effect of Boric Acid

The National Acadamies are authorative Although not observed in humans, animal studies have shown that high doses of borax or boric acid produce adverse effects in the testis and affect male fertility —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talkcontribs) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, under Biological role is the unreferenced "U.S. Department of agriculture conducted" experiment, with results showing that boron "activated estrogen and vitamin D". According to my gynecologist, estrogen is created in ovarian egg cells or by conversion of androgen in fat cells, it is not lying dormant in postmenopausal women waiting to be "activated". The possible reference states that "Boron Enhances and Mimics Some Effects of Estrogen Therapy in ..." Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine 5:237-246 (1992). Gnach (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a bit to the lede[edit]

The lede/lead for this article is one of the shortest for a major element, so I've added a bit, since there is a lot in this article to summarize.

Boron is really rare in the universe, being produced only by spallation and a bit in the Big Bang. It's rare on Earth also, but luckily the salts disolve in water and are concentrated in evaporate ores. So all that works well in the the first paragraph.

The second paragraph is about the pure stuff, as is traditional.

The third paragraph is about the compounds. The major industrial uses of boron are actually as perborate bleaches and borax in fiberglass. But it has a big future in supermaterials, I think, as people learn to work with the nitrides and carbides.

The forth paragraph, as also traditional, is the biological role, which is not an important one for life, but at the same time isn't indifferent. Boron is a bit like sodium and iodine-- it's so rare that you wouldn't think life would need it, but the ability of the ocean to concentrate it has made it more used than its crustal concentration would cause one to guess. SBHarris 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a link?[edit]

Shouldn't borax be wikilinked in the "etymology" paragraph? JCM83

It's already linked first in the lede and also later in the mineral section. I put in a third link, but that's three. Number of links for the same term in an article should be limited. Here it's when used for the first time, then then maybe when needed to stimulate the memory. A new one in etymology is okay with me, and then the section about borax minerals--- but that's it! SBHarris 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for giving the solid density of Boron[edit]

For the solid state no density is given in the table on the right. Here: it says: 2.46 g/cm3 But this one seems to be more reliable: 2.354(5) g cm–3 (293 K) I suggest to take the last value, or give 2.4 as the density at ambiant temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are four allotropes, thus the density is given for them all in a table in the "Allotropes" section. Materialscientist (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The solid density should still be in the physical properties table, like in the carbon article.--Klausok (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Boron Shielding and other errors and Omissions[edit]

Sorry but although Borate solutions are used to SRAM reactors and a small amount of Boric acid added to stabilize "swimming pool" reactors (evap or water boil concentrates Boron-10), Boron shielding is ineffective for x-ray and gamma radiation generated due to low mass) and less expensive steel or concrete typically serve both purposes. Note that B0ron-10 generates high energy He and Li particles on absorbing a neutro, and Boron-10 plus alpha gives C13 and neutron as well as alpha plus Boron-11 (80% of Boron) also yields neutron, in fact Boron can be part of a neutron generator when admixed with Polonium-210 or Radium or other Alpha emitter.[4]. No reference to using Boron shielding in a real reactor.

By the way, Borax is a condiment in the Middle East and Asia, and can be found in Hallal grocery stores for want of another reference.

Shjacks45 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Boron-10 is useful in theory as a neutron shield in places where weight is a premium and shield materials need to do double duty and structural support and radiation shields. That would be especially the case for boron and boron composites (like boron carbide) in interplanetary manned spacecraft. Secondary neutrons from cosmic rays are very difficult to stop without some type of neutron absorbant. This doesn't take care of the whole problem (the cosmic rays themselves, which are mostly fast protons plus a few heavier nuclei), but it does help with the cleanup. A reference is given. SBHarris 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]


Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Consensus is clearly to keep this article listed as Good. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

I feel that the article is not suitable referenced; there are many paragraphs that lack refs. In addition, the prose strength does not seem GA-worthy to me. StringTheory11 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The page grew from 54,848 bytes (2009-07-21) to 71,713 bytes (2012-01-05) and also from 98 refs to 112 refs, there might be the good chance to improve the page with the help of the main contributors.--Stone (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep While it could be improved I am not seeing anything here or at the article that warrants delisting. Maybe if some examples of poor prose or unreferenced statements were provided a stronger case could be made. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep The ref situation improved and without further recommendations it is hard to change the article.--Stone (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Aircorn and Stone. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User should not be deleting the useful references from Wikipedia[edit]

I inserted references to the latest papers, which I found useful and sure that others will find them useful too. User Materialscientist deleted them without explaining why. This indicates he has not read the papers I refer to, or has the conflict of interest. Reading comments on the Talk page I see how this article on Boron was before suffering from the deleting of articles and references and some conflicts of the interests. Please don't delete useful articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Each piece of knowledge is precious. Deleting knowledge as Materialscientist does it, without reasons, helps nothing. If I found these references useful, other readers will find them useful too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You could use the information in the paper to add something useful to the article instead of just putting it in the External links. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion for improving. But Materialscientist just deleted references that I add and does not explain why. And now the article is not editable. What can I do? I think Materialscientist should explain himself or else he should be stopped or banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The added reference [1] is a mini-review of the work by A. Oganov, written by A. Oganov. Particularly, it contains explicit stings of the group of Dubrovinskaia, partly sourced to non-peer-reviewed work by A. Oganov (ref. 38). user:Aoganov (renamed to user:Luebuwei) has been blocked and banned from this site for this behavior, namely using all means possible to promote his work, discredit the group of Dubrovinskaia, and attempt to remove anyone who opposes that. (SPI case, block log, "unblock and ban" ANI thread). Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Materialscientist, but you are telling untruth. I have read this article and suggest anyone to read it. It is a general review of discovery of the element Boron and its studies. It reviews works starting from XIX century. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you have the conflict of interest with Prof. Oganov, you should say so and abstain from editing pages related to his work. If you are friends with Dubrovinskaia, you should again say so and not defend her through Wikipedia. In any ways, I don't see how a careful review of works from XIX to XXI centuries by Prof. Oganov and Prof. Solozhenko harms your interests and interests of Dubrovinskaia. Please abstain from making incorrect statements and editing Wikipedia subjectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I also now check that you, Materialscientist, seems to be the same user as NIMSOffice who made arguments with Prof. Oganov on this talk pages. Do you also have similar arguments with Prof. Solozhenko, Prof. Macchi, Prof. Rulis, Prof. Zhou, Prof. Veprek, and all other whose papers I cited and you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch it 218. Ascribing nefarious motives to other users and then insulting them is a personal attack and is not considered to be a constructive use of article talk pages. Please do not do that again. --mav (reviews needed) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear user Mav, when you read the Materialscientist comments it is shocking that he has so much hatred and acts by subjective motives. There are no objective reason for not referencing peer-reviewed publications.

Stop that, now. There is no reason or justification for attributing such motives to a fellow editor. As you have been told seveeral times now, we use Secondary sources for a reason: authors must be independent of the work being reported in order to objectively assess its significance. Obviously Oganov is not independent of Oganov. That is not a "subjective movtive", it is responsible editing. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

consider useful references for referring[edit]

I cited several recent papers that I found useful, but the Materialscientist user deleted them for apparently some of his personal reasons. I spent a bit too much time trying to restore these references and he just deleted them back. I don't want to do this forever. In fact, I don't want to help Wikipedia any more if destructive people like Materialscientist can do here what they want and noone stop their acts. May I recommend the community to consider including these references.

I suggest to add the reference to:

Discovery and studies of boron encountered many complications due to its unique electron-deficient chemistry {Oganov, A.R., Solozhenko, V.L. Boron: a hunt for superhard polymorphs. Journal of Superhard Materials, vol. 31, 285-291 (2009).}

The I recommend a special issue ( dedicated to boron with following leading expert articles:

A critical reappraisal of the structure, bonding, compressibility and hardness properties of gamma-B28 phase is given in: The high-pressure phase of boron, γ-B28: Disputes and conclusions of 5 years after discovery. A. R. Oganov, V. L. Solozhenko, C. Gatti, O. O. Kurakevych and Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 380-387 (2011).

Careful analysis confirmed large charge separation (Oganov et al., Nature, 2009) between boron atoms in gamma-B28: On the nature of chemical bonding in γ-boron. P. Macchi. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 388-393 (2011).

Comparative review of theoretical and experimental equations of state of orthorhombic boron γ-B28. Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 394-400 (2011).

gamma-B28 has an unusual electronic structure: Spectral analysis of the electronic structure of γ-B28. P. Rulis, L. Wang, B. Walker and W.-Y. Ching. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 401-408 (2011).

gamma-B28 superhardness is confirmed by theory studies: Large shear strength enhancement of gamma-boron by normal compression. X.-F. Zhou, Y. Tian and H.-T. Wang. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 409-420 (2011); Mechanical properties and hardness of boron and boron-rich solids. S. Veprek, R. F. Zhang and A. S. Argon. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011).

Boron rich solids are frequently structurally similar to element boron and also supehard: Experimental study and critical review of structural, thermodynamic and mechanical properties of superhard refractory boron suboxide B6O. O. O. Kurakevych and V. L. Solozhenko. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist is definitely not right in imposing his opinion and, especially, rendering the valuable reviews/papers unknown. Instead of deleting the references, it would be better to cite the similar reviews from the opposite group, which, according to him, seems to be less aggressive. So everybody could compare the opposite opignions and learn a lot about the history of boron discovery. --Extreme cond (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on registering an account, you'll find it helpful. But please do not assume bad faith in fellow editors. What evidence do you have that Materialscientist is "imposing his opinion", as opposed to following policies, which are established by broad community consensus? Do we have independent reviews (ones that someone unconnected with Oganov) to establish that this work is worthy of note in the article? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012[edit]

In the first paragraph, a change from: These are mined industrially as evaporate ores


These are mined industrially as evaporites

or perhaps: These are mined industrially as evaporate ores

Wikihalf (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Compounds of boron(I) and (II)[edit]

The hydrides, usually called boranes, (no link to this article by the way) lots of them, have a formal oxidation state of less than +3 but it isn't always a nice whole number- a heading along the lines of oxidation state < III would be more accurate. Also carboranes, a lot of those too, all pretty clusters, not mentioned at all. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I've put in a few paragraphs and a main article reference on the important boranes and their boron formal oxidation numbers, which are simply the mean H/B ratios. I added something about carboranes also in the organoboron section. We still need to add a pic of the unusual diborane plus at least one of the compounds with dodecahedral or icosahedral structures. Thanks for pointing out this hole. SBHarris 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Making correction of nonsense[edit]

"the borax component of fiberglass insulation. " is nonsense. Owens-Corning makes Borosilicate glass which it trademarked as Pyrex, with superior strength and breakage resistace (thermal shock resistance) than ordinary soda lime glass. No reference specifically to borosilicate and fiberglass except both are Corning products. See Fiberglass and Shjacks45 (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Turns out this is complicated, and only the idea that borosilicate glass is in fiberglass is nonsense. But the article doesn't say that. Most boron use world-wide is indeed now used in glass fiber and both insulating and structural fiberglass, but not all fiberglass uses boron-containing glass fibers. Worldwide, it appears that most of it does, however, as it is especially popular in Asia. Boron is added to glass fibers for fiberglass as a fluxing agent, as borax hydrate or (different) boron oxide. It's not nonsense. The glass in fiberglass does not have to be the borosilicate glass used by Corning in Pyrex, or by other glass companies for glassware. That is a different glass. Most of boronated glass fiber is simply high-boron glass where the boron compounds are added as fluxing agents. [2] [3] About 10% of global boron compounds are used to make borosilicate glass for as glassware. Ceramics add being 15%, agriculture 11%, detergents/whiteners 6% and other uses the rest. I'll update the article, and provide refs. SBHarris 01:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Who discovered Boron?[edit]

In the article it states that in 1808 'Boron was not recognized as an element until it was isolated by Sir Humphry Davy and by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and Louis Jacques Thénard.' then later it states that boron was only recognised as an element by Berzelius in 1824. This is clearly contradictory. VenomousConcept (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems part of the problem may result from the use of primary sources. Both the Davy and Berzelius references are primary. What do solid second or tertiary sources say? Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
de.wikipedia says that Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and Louis Jacques Thénard isolated the boron, followed by Sir Humphry Davy. But Berzelius recognized its status as element 1824. You have to isolate first a substance, before you can recognise it as an element. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some updates[edit]

See my comments in the section above plus one, on corrections and nonsense. The world market stuff hasn't had a look for a while. In the meantime Eti Mine Works has taken over half the world's boron production, and Rio Tinto is down to a quarter. Half of world boron is used in borosilicate glass, but 5/6ths of this is glass fiber and fiberglass that uses E-glass. Bulk borosilicate glassware is the rest. Ceramics (15%) and agriculture (11%) are next, with detergents and bleaches 6%. World production and consumption is now up to about 4 million tons. I'm going to put this in, and fix it up. References are above and will be put in as I do it. SBHarris 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

White, Cerqueira, et al in Ang.Chem.Int.Ed. (online prepub Jan 23, 2015) note that β-Boron (rhombohedral) is the most stable form (at STP) but is unique in that the structure contains a variable number of interstitial boron atoms (in order to fulfill valence requirements). That is, the structure is not definite (or a unit cell doesn't have a specific structure and atom count, ie. is variable). They also note (but full article is behind a pay-wall) that the fullerene B40 has recently been discovered and that MgB2 surprizingly is a superconductor. FWIWAbitslow (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevych O.O., Solozhenko V.L. (2009). "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron" (PDF). Nature 457: 863-867 (free download). doi:10.1038/nature07736. 
  2. ^ Shipley, Joseph T. (2001). The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. JHU Press. ISBN 9780801867842. 
  3. ^ "Etymology of Elements". innvista. Retrieved 2009-06-06. 
  4. ^

Allotropes list in infobox[edit]

I started filling the (new) label Allotropes in the infobox. I do not know exactly which are most relevant for boron. Boron has a separate article allotropes of boron (Interesting; any more elements have?).

But my basic reader's rule is: if it is mentioned in the article or infobox, it must be there. I find it bad writing if a word "β-rhombohedral" pops up in the crystal data, and it has not been introduced yet. And from there, any reader expects an alpha to be somewhere, to state the obvious) -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

allotropes of boron lists
α-R α-T β-R β-T
which makes more sense to me (and shows that "T" might be ambiguous). -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And there are γ, borophene, borospherene, amorphous, and a few odd forms - too many to list, and not that easy to argue why excluding some of them. Materialscientist (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Now allotropes are mentioned in boron, as they are in this interesting list.
Once are mentioned in article boron, we cannot deny them (this is the lower edge). And yes, there are many, so there is an upper edge. Also, quite logically allotropes of boron and boron should say the same.
The only thing I require is that they are listed and mentioned and named properly in article boron (that includes the infobox] of course), and walking in poace with the allotropes page. Writing "See page x" in an infobox I do not accept.
Why don't you just write your proposal of that list? How would you list the (main) allotropes of boron for our reader? -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As to infobox, simply linking to allotropes of boron will do better (the situation is similar for sulfur). Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The infobox shall not be a "See also" link list. Now what is your allotropes list proposal for boron? And, while we are at it, what to do with that "T" reference I tagged in the text? I am getting confused, by what you do *not* say about the "allotropes of boron" topic. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorted out T. When the field is unstable, leave it be. γ, borophene and borospherene forms were (re)discovered recently. At the moment, they are not major - they are lab. forms, not industrial forms (which are typically alpha-beta-amorphous mixtures), but the situation may change quickly, as γ is the hardest, borophene is similar to the world-famous graphene, and borospherene is similar to fullerene, which also used to be a hot topic. γ and T forms will probably go into obscurity, but the situation with the other two is uncertain. Also, the high-pressure phases will likely be studied, as there are always scientific interests there. However, these are just my personal speculations - anyone can argue to have a lengthy full list or trim it to the bulk forms only - this could be a matter of a healthy debate, so please wait for others. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Really, User:Materialscientist, you are a dick. This talk (I started, after some of your low-level edits) you did not contribute to pursue a result, and meanwhile you disrupt other pages. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The reference at the end of the sentence which has been tagged with clarify states:

In  fact,  probably  only  three  of  the reported boron phases correspond to the pure
element rhombohedral, α-B12, β-B106 (with 12 and 106 atoms in the unit cell, respectively)
and tetragonal T-192 (with 190–192 atoms per unit cell)

It migth be good to divert from the cited source by writing α-rhombohedral β-rhombohedral β-tetragonal γ-orthorhombic?--Stone (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A while back I spent a fair amount of time researching and then updating the allotropes of boron article. The situation seems reasonably concise to me: α-R; α-T; β-R; β-T; γ; borospherene (B40); amorphous (powder; glassy). I left out borophene since I understand it hasn't been made yet. Sandbh (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
For carbon (and sulfur, and the like) you could try something like, "graphite; diamond; buckminsterfullerene (C60); graphene; amorphous, and other forms." Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── One week after, I recap. The article today says, somewhere in section "Boron#Allotropes" -- not in top: "It exists in four major polymorphs: α, β, γ and T". But the main article allotropes of boron does not mention any "T" allotrope (not-at-all). Then, if "T" is to mean "Tetragonal", this article must say so, and resolve the disambiguity. I want that the two articles are congruent and that article boron does not use unspecified or non-existing symbols.

(I also note that early rattler and edit warrior Materialscientist did not contribute any more.) -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's simple: this article was written from refs ([22,28,30,31]) that ignore the alpha-T phase and call beta-T as T; most other refs don't deal with the T phases. Few authors recognize alpha-T boron as a pure phase, thinking it is a BN or BC alloy. I've quickly tried to synchronize this and allotropes articles. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


two amorphous forms (powder, glassy)
α-rhombohedral, β-rhombohedral, β-tetragonal
And in special circumstances, boron can also be synthesized in the form of
α-tetragonal, γ-orthorhombic

This I understand. That's five allotropes. (If the two amorphous's should be counted too, please correct me).
At the same time, Boron#Allotropes says: It exists in four major polymorphs: rhombohedral α-R and β-R, γ and β-T; α-T phase also exists, but is very difficult to produce without significant contamination. Whereas α, β and T phases are based on B12 icosahedra, the γ-phase[?4] can be described as a rocksalt-type arrangement of the icosahedra and B2 atomic pairs.

This text is utter nonsense. For example, still the "γ" is isolated, the "T" is not explained at allnor is the "R"), the "α, β and T phases" are ambiguous as a child could say. I propose to edit the boron article harshly to follow the allotropes' page 1:1. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Better fix the allotropes article, which is written in a spirit "if it was synthesized, it exists". I saw no evidence that γ phase (an maybe T) actually exists in nature in appreciable amounts. Materialscientist (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Whatever: they do not sync. And again (sigh): "T" is not an allotrope id. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Now they are. One thnig left to be clarified. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
See my comments under Updates, above. β-Boron (rhom) structure is described as being 105 - 106.5 atoms and VARIABLE (4 icosahedrons at corners/edges and 3 more fused internal with varying occupation). That is two 'unit cells' may not have identical atom positions OR number of atoms. (If I am correctly interpreting what I read). This apparently makes Boron 'structure' unique.Abitslow (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Boron chemistry[edit]

A talk on boron started at Talk:Metalloid#boron_chemistry. Please contribute there (not here), to keep it single-place. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)