Talk:Reagent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Reagent/reactant split[edit]

I decided that it would be a to spilt the portion of this article that deals with reagents in chemical reactions (that is, "reagent" as a noun) into the reactant page. I kept the description of reagent as a mark of purity (that is, "reagent" as an adjective) here. I felt that it would be good to split the pages so that we don't confuse the two different definitions of "reagent." Feel free to leave a comment here or on Talk:Reactant. MJSkia1 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Focus of the article[edit]

I thought that ths article would deal with the word "reagent" used as an adjective to describe purity, so I deleted the "a." MJSkia1 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ehh...[edit]

I'm too lazy to log in but... I think this might be a chm stub. It's a little lacking, if not vague, considering it is a redirection from "reactantS". A merge with the "reactant" page might end both page's problems, I see that there was a split but it actually makes things confusing because reagent and reactant are not distinctly described. They seem to mean the same concept (they include parts of each other) but with different words. If not a merge then it can at least be cleaned up; if there is an insistence on having examples, a section could be made a section for examples or at least distintions between the "two definitions" of reagent. 65.8.200.152 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bomb Chelle.

Catalysts?[edit]

Do reagents include catalysts, or does it have to be taking part in the reaction? I think this should be cleared up in the article, however, im not sure of the answer myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.236.103 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

No, catalysts are usually not called reagents. --Itub 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Catalysts usually are the reactants because they do not get consumed (become an agent) in the reaction but rather react. If a catalyst was a reagent (the primary substance that is consumed during the reaction), it wouldn't be called a catalyst.

Lets take a look at this in a "Mathematical" way (Use The Law Of Equal Proportionation

Reactant: The substance on the left side of the molecular equation Reagent: The substance on the right side of the equation, or the substance which is tested on

Here is a catalytic reaction:

HHOO (Hydrogen Peroxide)+ OO (Peroxide with negative charge, found in livers)

Simpler formula =(H2O2 + O2)

(Oxygen needs 2 Hydrogens since oxygen)

Product = H2O --> O2 (Water and and Oxide molecule)

  • You can try this at home if you have a piece of liver and pour Hydrogen Peroxide at home.


As you can see only Oxygen was taking place in the reaction. The reactant was Hydrogen Peroxide which is also the catalyst. If you use Manganese(IV) oxide only oxygen is the reactant, but this time a black liquid is produced that is mixed with water and oxygen which are the products.

  • Note: I am not a credible source since I am in Grade 10, please ask a professional chemist or research it up yourself. And also note that most of the Wikipedians are not themselves credible but they source their information from external sites. Make sure your sourcing is from a doctor, professor, or one who's occupation specializes on your topic. If sourcing a site, try to find a .gov .org or any other site that have credible publishers. (This is why wikipedia has lots of sourcing =P, so vandalizers cannot edit at will)

--• Storkian • 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub Marking[edit]

I just marked this as a stub, for such an important term, there should be more info.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Buffers?[edit]

Are buffers reagents? On the one hand, they seem to impede rather than bring about reactions, but on the other, impeding is itself a reaction (cf. deceleration being a kind of acceleration). JKeck (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(spelling?) nit-pick: "effect" vs. "affect"[edit]

The article contains a sentence saying "In organic chemistry, reagents are compounds or mixtures, usually composed of inorganic or small organic molecules, that are used to affect a transformation on an organic substrate.".

I think the word "affect" there should be "effect" instead. Here "affect" means, 'to have an effect upon'; while the verb to "effect" (some [direct object] thing), would mean, to bring about a certain event -- [the direct object of the verb] -- that is, to cause that event (in this case, the "transformation") to occur.

I could be wrong, but the evidence suggests that the intended meaning here is probably to cause the "transformation" mentioned to occur, rather than just to have some effect upon it.

If the person (editor) who wrote this had really meant 'to have an effect upon' the "transformation", (that is, to influence the "transformation" in some way), then it just seems obvious that he/she would have also said something about what kind of effect the reagent was supposed to have, on the "transformation". For example, speeding up a reaction is one way of "affecting" a given reaction; but why would someone say "affect" (meaning, [to] 'have an effect upon' [some thing]), if their intended meaning were really something more specific, such as to 'speed up' that thing?

On the other hand, it is well known that sometimes writers spell one of those verbs ("effect" vs. "affect") when they should spell the other, partly because [A] it is a one-letter TYPO; and partly because [B] there is no difference (or only a slight difference) in the pronunciation, so the distinction ("effect" vs. "affect") is often completely lost in spoken language.

Any comments, before I edit this article? (a one-letter change to the wiki markup). Going once ...

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)