Talk:Carbon monoxide

"It binds very strongly to the iron atom in hemoglobin, (the principal oxygen-carrying compound in blood); this renders the hemoglobin incapable of taking up and releasing oxygen."

Wouldn't it be more precise to say : "It has stronger affinity for the iron binding site in hemoglobin, (the principal oxygen-carrying compound in blood); this renders the hemoglobin's oxygen transporting function practically ineffective."

iam gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.197.96 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION: at what rate does CO leave the bloodstream? To what extent is carbon monoxide "poisoning" cumulative...like, say, lead poisoning?

The listed bond length in the article is incorrect. Any college student silly enough to use this article as a reference for their laboratories deserves the grade they receive, which will not be a good one.

Quite curiously, Mr./Ms. Anonymouse didn't put in his/her thoughts of what the answer should be, so that we could grade it. Would it be farther off than what's here now? Just wondering. If a student were trying to measure this, and used the Wikipedia article to check their work, is it likely that they'd be led astray? Pretty unlikely. Gene Nygaard 03:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet the question still has not been answered. I work around older IC Engines without Catalytic converters. Even with good ventilation there is still some level of CO in the area. Without hyperbaric treatment how long does it take low levels of CO bonding to dissipate. Ie. If one were exposed to an atmosphere of 20 PPM for 3 or 4 hours daily for 3 or 4 days, how long should one wait before again exposing ones self to those levels? (My work around old engines is a hobby, I can take extended breaks doing other things between times that I require them to actually be running for testing.) My Google searches have not yet turned up a substantial answer. [Gerald Livingston] 65.170.133.234 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of CO poisoning is that it permanently (or near as dammit) binds to haemoglobin, writing that particular molecule off to Oxygen for the rest of its lifetime. That is to say, the effects are cumulative (which is what makes it so deadly). This being said, the red blood cells in your body are in a constant state of renewal, with a ballpark figure of a completely new set of blood cells every 6 weeks, so it's not as bad as all that. (A chemistry student, Cambridge University) 128.232.242.158 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct; the compound it forms is called carboxyhemoglobin, and it doesn't help your circulatory system one bit. Ruff ^{Bark away!}

It is not. CO does not bind permanently. CO-Intoxication is cured by supplying 100% O2 for breathing which removes the CO from your blood completely (though not within seconds). The danger comes from CO's ability to bind much better than O2, thus displacing O2 as long as enough CO is available in the air. --84.159.176.234 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

holocaust

I read somewhere that 'monoxide gas' was used in the holocaust. Does anyone know if it was this stuff or a different 'monoxide'

    It's carbon monoxide.

thanks tommylommykins 14:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

They also often used hydrogen cyanide (or possibly cyanogen). Anthony Appleyard 15:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Erm.. It wasn't always like that, Zyklon B was mostly used. Kilo-Lima 21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Zyklon B is hydrogen cyanide

Carbon monoxide poisoning

Anybody object if I split that into a separate article? --Arcadian 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do, but clearly mark the link. That's what I came here looking for actually!

Okay, I've split it out into Carbon monoxide poisoning (which was formerly a redirect). --Arcadian 17:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Images

What causes the two hotspots in CO-concentration over AFrica and South America?

Wildfires.--NHSavage 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Natural CO sources are NOT volcanoes, but oceans and vegetation. See http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/22/natural.php

density

8.0 kg/cm³, cannot be correct, no natural stuff on Earth is so heavy!

Neurotransmitter

Shouldnt it be mentioned as well that it's a gas neurotransmitter somewhere? -- Random viewer...

Confusion

"Under ordinary conditions, it is less dense than air. During fires, it accumulates on the ground, so that if poisoning causes loss of consciousness, the amount of carbon monoxide inhaled increases and so fatality is radically increased." This seems a little confusing to me, does the density of CO become higher than that of air as the temperature increases? Terri G 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How do detectors work?

How do CO detectors work? I'm told there are "electrochemical" and "MOS" varieties. -- Beland 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Carbon monoxide detector. -69.87.199.142 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow image??

I'm curious: Why the rainbow image next to the space-filling model of carbon dioxide? Ruff ^{Bark away!} 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the key - it tells you what colours represent what densities of CO MilleauRekiir 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to toxicity

Edited toxicity - removed the blurb about hemoglobin, and linked to the hemoglobin article. That does a better job, methinks. =^^= --Dennis The TIger 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

recommendation for improvement

I just added some peerreviewer recommendations for further article improvement in the WP:Chem template. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Chp co ligand.jpg

Image:Chp co ligand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Real-world concentrations

Please add some real-world concentration numbers, typical CO ppm ranges:

• atmosphere: baseline, suburban, urban, in traffic, upper atmosphere
• candle flame, kerosene lantern flame, natural gas burner flames
• internal combustion exhaust: before and after catalytic converter, diesel

-69.87.199.142 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Several natural sources of CO of both biological origins have also been identified but their contributions to urban atmospheric concentrations are thought to be small. Background levels of CO (resulting from natural and technological sources) found in relatively unpolluted air range from 0.025 to 1.0 ppm. Urban carbon monoxide is produced primarily by motor vehicles.

Because motor vehicle traffic is the major source of CO, daily concentration peaks coincide with morning and evening rush hours. The worst carbon monoxide problems are found where large numbers of slow moving cars congregate. These problems are further aggravated when they occur in a "street canyon" situation. When there are large amounts of slow moving traffic in a street canyon situation, with the wind blowing perpendicular to the street, carbon monoxide can be trapped in the canyon and build up to unhealthful levels.

CO problems are usually worse in winter because: 1) cold weather makes motor vehicles run dirtier and requires more combustion for space heating; and 2) on winter nights a strong inversion layer develops in the atmosphere, that traps pollution near the ground, preventing it from mixing with cleaner air above."[1]

"No standards for CO have been agreed upon for indoor air. The U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air are 9 ppm (40,000 micrograms per meter cubed) for 8 hours, and 35 ppm for 1 hour." "Average levels in homes without gas stoves vary from 0.5 to 5 parts per million (ppm). Levels near properly adjusted gas stoves are often 5 to 15 ppm and those near poorly adjusted stoves may be 30 ppm or higher."[2]

"undiluted cigarette smoke contains about 30,000 ppm of CO, undiluted warm car exhaust about 7,000 ppm, and the chimney of a home wood fire about 5,000 ppm. Clean countryside air contains about 0.02 ppm of CO. The smoke from one pack of cigarettes, if distributed uniformly throughout an average sized house, could result in a CO concentration of up to 14 ppm.

An average healthy person at sea level is just barely affected by prolonged exposure to concentrations of 9 ppm, but the presence of other pollutants aggravates the situation, and respiratory and cardiac problems pose an increased risk. Chronic exposure to high concentrations of CO (30 to 100 ppm), such as in a poorly vented garage, can lead to long-term deterioration of the cardiovascular system." (1983)[3] -69.87.199.142 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chp co ligand.jpg

Image:Chp co ligand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mond process?

"Nickel carbonyl decomposes readily back to Ni and CO upon contact with hot surfaces, and this method was once used for the industrial purification of nickel in the Mond process.[5]"

To the best of my knowledge, this is still the only way nickel is purified to this day. If anyone knows differently please comment. Keith Henson (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Names

I just noted that under the other names section there was only Carbonic oxide, adding the stock name might also be a good idea, I've seen it for other compounds on Wikipedia. 12.206.59.238 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'Resonance'

.. and can be represented by three resonance structures:..

Really?? The second and third 'resonance' structures do not have octets on the carbon. Shouldn't the article discuss that?

Jcwf (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added an NPOV dispute to the "Carbon Monoxide in the Enviornment" section, because of its lack of citation and anti-global warming standpoint.

Please correct by adding non-bias citations. 71.184.255.196 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

C'mon. Really. Two things: (1) Is it NPOV to be anti-global warming? Is it then NPOV to be pro-global warming? The NPOV thing is to be NPOV to global warming, me thinks. But what do I know, I'm just a doctor in Earth Sciences. Second, (2) the text is not anti-global warming in my humble opinion, it is in fact NPOV. I don't hate religion, but I hate when a scientific hypothesis such as global warming is made into religion. It hurts us all, and most of all it hurts science. But what do I know. PS. I replaced the NPOV tag with a citation tag.Lindorm (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reducing agent

As far as I know carbon monoxide is a very strong reducing agent, should this not be mentioned in the article? 196.207.33.197 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)