From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article Oxygen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a vital article.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
  • Archive 1 through January 2008.
    (when it became a Featured Article)

Article vandalised with Jason Preistly name and TV show cross references being inserted instead of joseph preistly. JDN

merge Activated Oxygen into ozone?[edit]

Should we merge the new article Activated Oxygen into the ozone article?--Stone (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Vgnsh20011 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen molecule image[edit]

Oxygen discharge (spectrum) tube
Oxygen O2 molecule.

I have replaced the oxygen discharge type image with an image of the oxygen molecule. If someone finds a good place for the discharge tube image, please place it there. Ulflund (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


"Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is; water contains approximately 1 molecule of O2 for every 2 molecules of N2, compared to an atmospheric ratio of approximately 1:4. The solubility of oxygen in water is temperature-dependent, and about twice as much (14.6 mg·L−1) dissolves at 0 °C than at 20 °C (7.6 mg·L−1)."

Error here (can't edit b/c new user): the 7.6 mg-L-1 solubility is at 30ºC, NOT at 20ºC (source: and many other easily available sources on google). Someone please correct this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This section appears to me to be contradictory and confusing. If there are 2 molecules of dissolved nitrogen in water, compared to 1 molecule of oxygen, then isn't nitrogen more soluble than oxygen ? If the key point here is that there are 4 nitrogen molecules in the air for each 1 molecule of oxygen in the air, then how does the solubility depend on this ; the unit being given for the solubility does not indicate this.Eregli bob (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes its is confusing. The first statement appears to be showing that the dissolved oxygen-nitrogen ratio (mol/mol) in water is relatively more oxygen-rich than the equivalent oxygen-nitrogen ratio in air, but in both cases there is more nitrogen. The second is about the inverse temperature relationship of the (satuarated) dissolved oxygen concentration (mg·L−1) in water. I think it may be necessary to go back to the source (Emsley) to see what is being claimed there. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't THAT confusing. Gas solubilities are related to partial pressures. If nitrogen's partial pressure is 4 times that of oxygen in air (which it is), if they had the same solubility, they would present in a 4:1 ratio of molar content dissolved in water, as well. But they aren't-- it's down to 2:1, which indicates that oxygen is twice as soluble as nitrogen in water. The second paragraph only has to do with the temperature-sensitivity of oxygen's solubility, and ignores nitrogen (as it should, since these are more or less independent things, and the presense or absense of nitrogen has almost nothing to do with how much oxygen dissolves in water).SBHarris 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Make this article.....[edit]

Make it simpler and more understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by YohohoTheBest (talkcontribs) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to tell us where you live, what your primary language is, how many years of education you have (what year in school you are). WP articles on things like elements are aimed about about the level of U.S. high school seniors or high school graduate (no college required). SBHarris 20:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

i would change the following sentence: "two atoms of the element bind to form dioxygen, a very pale blue, odorless, tasteless diatomic gas with the formula O2". oxygen gas is clear and colorless; it is only pale blue when it s a liquid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiramnes (talkcontribs) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

incomplete info.....[edit]

Info on isotopes is missing (i.e., exact masses, including mass defects). This info would be of particular interest to chemists, physicists, and the field of mass spectrometry. Dha250 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you try clicking on the link saying "Main article: Isotopes of oxygen" right after the section header and the infobox isotopes header? That page gives the exact masses. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ubiquitous O compounds[edit]

Oxygen is the most abundant element by mass in the crust, the oceans, and of course us. And second most common in most materials around us. Unless you live in a metal house, wear BN ceramics, and got diamonds on the soles of your shoes, etc., that's true. I tried to get something to that effect into the lead. I think oxygen is so common that it's easier to describe common things that don't contain O than those that do. It's so common I can't summarize except to say that. Some editor disagreed and reverted me. Okay, so let's see you do better. SBHarris 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013[edit]

In the 'Safety and precautions' section, please change this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa (equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure)."

to this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, or 2.5 times the normal sea-level oxygen partial pressure which is about 21 kPa."

This will clarify the sentence. The current phasing implies that 21 kPA is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, but actually it should say that 50 kPa is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure. Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Reatlas (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


29-07-2013 The article gives preference to the independant American discoverer of Oxygen in spite of the fact the English discoverer of Oxygen published it first. This should be changed by an edit expert to credit the English discoverer Priestley first in the sentence. The author of this article has not paid due respect to that, and somehow is insinuating the discovery ought to be awarded to the American by putting his name first in the sentence when it should be printed second or actually - if at all. Does Wikipedia want to maintain credibility or allow the article authors to perpertrate bias and bend the truth of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What American? Scheele was Swedish. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
He was Pomeranian. He spoke Swedish, but only when not yapping. SBHarris 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of reference[edit]

I've removed the reference used after "for example, about two-thirds of human body mass" in the articles lead section. The reference doesn't specify the fact it is used for, and seems to be of a questionable quality for a FA lead. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a gase be tasteless?[edit]

In my work I once wrote that oxygen, as a simple substance, is a tasteless gase. All the university laughed at that thing. But the English Wiki does state the same that I said. Does it have any sense that a gase can be tasteless or have taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlorine and other halogen gases have nasty tastes, and all gases that turn into acids (HCl) taste very sour. Of course oxygen and nitrogen are tasteless. Can you taste pure air? SBHarris 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


The information in the article and infobox regarding the discovery of oxygen do not agree; Priestley is not mentioned in the infobox, and the dates for Scheele are different. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For reasons of space the first discoverer is usually the only one mentioned in the infobox. Scheele gets the spot because he found it first, although Priestley was the first to publish his discovery. As for the date, it seems to be not entirely certain, but it was probably discovered around 1772 and was certainly discovered by 1773. (Perhaps we should use "1772?", to show this uncertainty?) Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For whatever free text description, there is available for the infobox: |history comment label= (LH text), and |history comment=.
I think, encyclopedically "space" is not an argument. More so electronically (unlimited page size + hyperlinks). OTOH, info could be left out because it is not relevant or too detailed. And with your reply, Doublesharp, is that discrepancy solved/disappeared (an explanation on the talkpage does not count). -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edited the molecular structure description[edit]

… of dioxygen to be consistent with standard descriptions from high quality US and EU university texts [specifically citing the molecular orbital (MO) diagram and description of Barrett], providing this standard MO description, a nearly precisely corresponding MO diagram from wikimedia commons, removing the unnecessary Purdue genchem coursework citation, calling for a good, solid, secondary chem source for the triplet description, and providing a better preliminary description of the Pauling model and source.

If you are going to edit/change this, do so only if you have source in hand, and it is a solid text or secondary chem source, and as clearly draw your information from your source as did from mine. The earlier vague description and unreliable sourcing cannot remain here; it is just unrepresentative of the status of this field and information, and overall sub-par chemical description and sourcing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving images around so the appearance of the article is more acceptable; please hold. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I made the article presentable after the mol structure edit, by moving images: moving the liq O2 image to the article section on liq O2, moving the space-filling O2 to the infobox (which requires that the whole info box markup language appear, until other editing is done), and then moving the paramagnetism trickle image to left side.
The discharge image is moved here, because there is no explanatory text for it in the article (at all, and so no context to place it):
Blue white glow from an oxygen discharge tube.
please reintroduce this image when it has a proper encyclopedic context.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)