Talk:Zinc

Shouldn't Zinc be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?

Shouldn't Zinc be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Ahoy there. Bedevilled as my humanities topics are when someone observes that this or that historical incident was referred to in a B movie, and then clutters a good article up with dross, I thought I'd mention "In Popular Culture" here first. The Simpson's "Come Back Zinc" comes to mind immediately on seeing the article, but the least amount of research indicates: http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2008/10/zincists.html is a far more interesting thread to follow up, why Zinc is seen as an example "boring" element. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarity between zinc and magnesium

Is there any source for this from the opening paragraph: "Zinc is chemically similar to magnesium"? 217.44.213.34 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In the main article, I quote: "in circumstances where ionic radius is a determining factor zinc and magnesium chemistries have much in common.", however, in the opening paragraph, "Zinc is chemically similar to magnesium" does not include the part about their chemistries being similar only when the ionic radius is a determining factor. For example, the alkali metals have similar chemical properties even though their ionic radii are totally different! I propose to change the lead to make it clear. 217.44.213.34 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alloys or accidental inclusions

"Brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, has been used since at least the 10th century BC. " Zinc, like bismuth, lead and antimony, occurs as a contaminant in bronze, but not as a conscious alloy until the first century BCE. This statement is unusual: it needs a reference and should be associated with a place. I'd have tagged it if I were that type.--Wetman (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The cited sentence is in the lead and thus does not reference there. It is expanded with the body with a reference. The rest from your message I honestly do not understand. Could you give a hint ? Materialscientist (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Zinc is a first row transition-metal?

Zinc is not technically a transition metal because it forms ions with a complete d-shell of electrons. This makes the opening of the article misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.50.57 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have changed the info box. This means that a new article has to be created for "post transition metal" Petergans (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It already exists at post-transition metal. My feeling is that most people simply ignore the difference between a post-transition metal and transition metal. Another thought is the complete d-shell is volatile in solid state. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. What a diffence a hyphen can make! I have given transition metal a thorough going over, which ought to clarify the situation, though the sections in that article on colour and oxidation states are, in my view, still far from satisfactory. Petergans (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to revisit this discussion about changing the table. --mav (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{{series comment}}} parameter to account for situations like this. Zinc now mentioned as both a transition and a post-transition. --mav (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A pair of further points

• I remember reading a news piece in the last six months or so stating that zinc is one of several metals whose mineral deposits are close to being exhausted (IIRC, we are down to a few years of extraction left); nothing about this in the article. Does anyone know more about this situation, & how it relates to zinc?
• I'm a little surprised that there is no reference to that other encyclopedia in the history of the metal -- Pliny's Natural history. Anyone know if the Elder Pliny mentions it? (I'd look in my copy, but my off-line life will keep too busy to look for the next couple of weeks.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Zinc in the Parkes process

The physical properties of molten Zinc are essential to the Parkes process for separating Silver and (if it is present) Gold from Lead. Perhaps this process should be mentioned in this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Prestal

I noted the properties discussed for Prestal and did some follow-up research because the material sounded quite interesting. Other than the CRC reference and various quotes from it on the web, I have not been able to find any information on the material. In referencing the CRC Handbook directly, I found that their claims regarding the material had no citation as well. Also, though CRC indicates Prestal is a trademarked name, my search of the USPTO data base for a trademark in North America for Prestal came up with no results. Does this stuff really exist? Joe Bunda (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a Google book link with actual pictures of car parts. There are more Google Books results, but most are reprints from CRC book. It probably existed, but is hardly marketed under its name. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

According to Walter W. Skeat's Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Zink is likely related to Zinn, "tin" in German, but this is unsure. He says "of uncertain origin, perhaps allied to zinn, tin, and meaning 'tin like.'" Perhaps someone could integrate this into the article? Some sort of etymological data would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.141.140 (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Included. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous talk pages

What has happened to the previous talk pages? The archive should be accessible. Petergans (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They're at the bottom center of the first box on the top of the page. AlexiusHoratius 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Transition metal?

The main text of this article assumes that zinc is a transition metal, but the "modern" definition at Transition metal would seem to exclude zinc, and in fact that article explicitly says "Zinc, cadmium, and mercury are not transition metals." Shouldn't this article be using the "modern" definition? 81.152.168.172 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

"The element was probably named by the alchemist Paracelsus after the German word Zinke."

Why? This should be included.174.3.121.27 (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Zinc (... from German: Zink), or..."

The Spanish-language Wikipedia says: "La etimología de cinc parece que viene del alemán, Zincken o Zacken, para indicar el aspecto con filos dentados del mineral calamina..." (ENGLISH TRANSL.: The etymology of zinc seems to come from the German "Zincken" or "Zacken" [= spike] to indicate the look/semblance of serrated edges of the mineral hemimorphite...)

There is one flaw in the Spanish version: "Zincken" is misspelled; it should read "Zinken". "Zacken" is correct, though. But apart from that, as a native German speaker, I would support Spanish entry. Stephan0008 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

== Physical ==

Per wp:head, a better alternative is == Physical characteristics==.174.3.121.27 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if it stands alone, but with a section heading "Characteristics" just above, this would be repetition. Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Medicinal===

{{editsemiprotected}} Per above, ===Medicinal=== should be changed to ===Medicine===.174.3.121.27 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree and  Done Thanks! SpigotMap 13:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"while the metal was unknown to Europe until the end of the 16th century."

There is a picture showing a roman brass bucket. So what does it mean that it is unknown?174.3.121.27 (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It was unknown as a distinct chemical elements. "Something metallic" could be used for ages and be some alloy. Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinc and the common cold

If a consensus can be reached that a particular zinc compound is the most effective cold treatment, based on available research, it would be nice if the information about zinc under the medicine section said so outright (while pointing out the controversy, including the possibility that no tested form of zinc safely fixes a cold, as well). As it is currently written, this page indicates only that zinc for treating colds is controversial, and after reading up on both zinc acetate and zinc gluconate, one may stumble across the arguments in reference 4 on the zinc acetate page for why zinc acetate is the preferred compound over all others (at least according to that single publication).

If the consensus is that there is still too much controversy to point a reader strongly in that direction, fair enough. I also don't know if a person looking for cold cures on Wikipedia overlaps well with the organization & content dictated by its mission as an encyclopedic resource. And finally, I'm not confident I did a thorough talk archive search, I'm new here. —eecharlie 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eecharlie (talk • contribs)

I don't think that's a decision we as editors can make. If there is a general consensus in the medical community about the effectiveness of zinc in treating colds, published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the case is easy: we cite it, and state it as fact. Given the current situation, the best we can do is to represent each of the differing viewpoints according to their weight (cf. WP:UNDUE), and leave it to the reader to decide the matter for herself.—Tetracube (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Should there be a link from the mention of zinc preparations for the common cold to the Zinc preparations section of Alternative_treatments_used_for_the_common_cold? --eecharlie 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. You could use the {{seealso|...}} template for that.—Tetracube (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, hopefully correctly! —eecharlie 21:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eecharlie (talk • contribs)

Contradiction in the Article

Under "Dietary Intake" it says "In the U.S., the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is 8 mg/day for women and 11 mg/day for men."

Under "Toxicity" it says "The USDA RDA is 15 mg Zn/day."

It appears that the first statement is true as of the 2004 Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) from the USDA.

Dhiren00 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

departure from SI units

you might think that changing kilotonnes, megatonnes, and gigatonnes to thousand tonnes, million tonnes, and billion tonnes adds clarity, but it doesn't really help. SI units are widely understood everywhere, except possibly in USA. But this is a science page, and formerly a featured article. SI units are de rigueur in science, which deprecates use of the word billion, because it is not the same everywhere. Let's keep it consistent and correct. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is "you"? and how do you know what he/she thinks? :-)

This "science" page is oriented at layperson, who might think of kilotonne, megatonne, etc., as something related to explosive power. Million tonnes, etc., is less ambiguous and is equally correct. Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking Google for gigatonne, i see there is no ambiguity whatsoever. But you are proposing to normalize popular slang, instead of educating people on the correct usage of terms. Such contributions fit better with urbandictionary.com rather than an encyclopedia. Will you follow this up to propose that we abandon the use of SI system altogether, and delete the words kilotonne and megatonne from articles except when using explosives? It is absurd. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A counter question, do you mean that "hectogram" would be more accurate or more common than "hundred gram" because scientists invented decimal prefixes? I believe use of prefixes should rely on common sense and not be obligatory in general articles. Neither obligatory is SI, and gram and centimeter are perfectly valid units. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What's obligatory is to avoid creating ambiguity. The word billion is not understood everywhere to be the same quantity. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hidden commercial content?

"For fortification, however, a 2003 review recommended zinc oxide in cereals as cheap, stable, and as easily absorbed as more expensive forms."

Really?? I think some people with very clear interests paid a visit to this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.213.53 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem the least bit commercial to me. It is neutrally worded, doesn't mention any product name, and is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal article. This is exactly the kind of info that should be in the "Dietary intake" section. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: Similarity between zinc and magnesium

1. Although Calcium has a melting point of 842 C, and Magnesium is 650 C, is close to Zinc 419 C. What is startling is the low boiling point and what should be noted is the unusually high vapor pressure in vacuo of Magnesium, Zinc, Cadmium, and Mercury at room temperature. The s electrons on these metals easily pair to form a spherical S orbital and exist as a mono atomic gas. The volatility of zinc is exemplified by "Fume fever" when welding Galvanized metal (c.f. Cadmium) and loss of Zinc, in Brass metal exposed to high temperatures, due to evaporation. The Zinc vapor in fume fever is metallic Zinc that does not immediately react with Oxygen in Air.

Approximate MP and BP:

                Be 1300 2500      
                Mg  650 1100   Al  660 2500
 Ca  842 1500   Zn  420  910   Ga   30 2200
 Sr  780 1400   Cd  320  770   In  160 2100  Sn  230 2600   Sb  630 1600
 Ba  730 1900   Hg  -40  360   Tl  300 1500  Pb  330 1800   Bi  270 1600

2. Zinc Telluride is a salt not alloy in the CRC. The formation of Brass is due to Zinc melting and dissolving into the remaining Copper, Copper's melting point is over 100 C higher than Zinc's BOILING point. Can you find me a Zinc-Iron, Zinc-Cobalt, Zinc-Nickel true alloy not due to co-plating? Why doesn't the steel under the galvanized coating dissolve into the zinc when its melted? Could it be that Iron's melting point is over 500 C higher than Zinc's BOILING point? Titanium's melting point is over 900 C higher than Zinc's BOILING point?

Zinc telluride is indeed not an alloy but salt; however, cadmium zinc telluride is sort of alloy of cadmium telluride and zinc telluride. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Zinc's standard potential is misleading as most Zinc batteries are alkaline and Zinc's potential in alkaline solution rises significantly higher than Hydrogen (.8 V in 1 M OH^-) due to removal of Zn⁺² as Zincate ([Zn(OH)₄]²⁻)

4. Einstein used ejection of electron by UV light from Zinc surface for his 1904 theorem on photoelectric effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Compounds of zinc?

We should make a decision about whether we want a family of articles on "Compounds of .." The implications would be for about 50-100 new articles that would require maintenance at a time when even the element articles are not super. But unless we decide to go that way, I recommend that compounds of zinc be merged into the section on compounds in the main zinc article. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For some articles, well-sourced details which were perceived as overly technical were split into daughter articles to pass GA/FA (compounds of berkelium, compounds of californium, this one, maybe a few more), while with others they were considered Ok to stay in the main article. I would treat this problem individually. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

While I don't deny the status quo, I disagree with how having a systematic survey of an element's compounds (binary chalcogenides, pnictogenides, halides, and so on) precludes passing GA/FA. I would imagine an article should *fail* GA/FA for lacking adequate discussion on this topic. While the article on zinc compounds is a little lengthier, the latter two are prime candidates for being reintegrated into the main articles. Even the discussion on zinc compounds in zinc is too brief. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would favour the creation and extension of compounds of.., content from the current zinc page should move to this page. The element page then can focus on the element itself which will benefit the quality. Why persisting on having BIG articles, what about content flow and readability: zinc takes you to compounds of zinc and then to organozinc compounds V8rik (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Zinc#Compounds and chemistry and Compounds of zinc follow well-established Summary Style format which aims to give varying levels of detail in different articles in order to serve different user's needs. The summary of zinc compounds here needs to be a bit on the short side especially since zinc compounds, how they are made, interact and etc are a topic in their own right. The folks at FAC are well aware of this and that is why there is a separate article for that detail. And the quality of the element articles has improved greatly in the last 10 years and continues to get better. True that progress on daughter articles is slower, but that isn't a reason to add bloat to the main articles. --mav (reviews needed) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please correct quote from King James Bible

It should be "instructor of every artificer..." not "instructor in every artificer...". I'd do it myself but the article is locked. Thanks! -- 77.21.99.8 (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. :) --mav (reviews needed) 00:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Zinc Toxicity article

I read the "Precautions" section of this article - which refers you to Zinc toxicity as the 'main' article on the subject. However, that article is actually just a subset of what is stated in this article!

IMHO, we should either delete Zinc toxicity - or move content out of this article into it and merely summarize the main information here.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Zinc fragment sublimed and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Zinc fragment sublimed and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A crystalline fragment of an ingot of zinc (upper left), a sample of sublimed-dendritic zinc, and a 1 cm³ cube for comparison. Zinc (or "spelter") is the 24th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. It is an essential mineral for humans; zinc deficiency affects about two billion people in the developing world and is associated with many diseases.Photo: Alchemist-hp

History / Ancient use

the statement "Palestinian brass from the 14th to 10th centuries BC" is historically incorrect at best and is politically driven at worst. at that time Jewish state of Judah existed in what is today Israel. 10th century BC is the time of King David's and King Solomon's kingdoms, which spread north to Damascus (see http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg). Palestine as a place name did not appear till after destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans who renamed Judah to erase the very name from memory. i am making a correction in the article. Dr voland (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Use in printing processes missing

Not one word about the use of zinc in various printing processes? See Zincography and Photozincography for historical examples. As I recall, the "instant offset" printing services of the 1970s (at that time, cheaper than xerox for more than, say, 50 identical copies of something) were still using zinc sheets, and mention of "modern zinc-plate lithographic printing" in the abovementioned Zincography article indicates this important use is ongoing. AVarchaeologist (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

why is this artilce protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I has been semi-protected due to repeated vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

expires 8 May 2014!!! don't you think that is a bit too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013

The structure of section 6 - Biological role is illogical. The sentence about dreaming ("Some supplemental zinc users report an increase in vivid dreaming") does not need a separate section. Please cut it out and append it to section 6.3 - Dietary intake. The section 6.5.1 - Agriculture then needs to be reformatted to form an own section under section 6 - Biological role (i.e. section 6.5.1 becomes section 6.5). Dandelyonn (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: The bit about dreaming was an unsourced addition, so I removed it from the article. This puts Agriculture as a subsection of Deficiency, which appears to me to be correct. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request 9/27/13

zinc gluconate is discussed as a dietary supplement but it should be zinc glycinate which is far superior (see link), and readily available. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18271278

Sections "Dietary supplement" and "Dietary intake"

IMHO section "Dietary supplement" and "Dietary intake" should be merged (or better distinguished), as it is rather confusing at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfishSeahorse (talk • contribs) 11:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Color

Why zinc usually looks bluish, not silvery-white? Passivtion? Or metal itself has bluish shde in its pure form?

95.49.56.52 (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, but pure Cd is really bluish. Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fix typo request

Typo: change "evicence" to "evidence" Thazz (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 19:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

stone

stone is very nice and kind. she likes green and he is special to her in many ways.... another fact about stone is she loves ghetto music, popcorn,shopping,camping, ps3,GTA5, and her granny... stone enjoys talking to many friends and she stuters alot.. she also enjoyslong walks in gym class. and she likes the movies, and buying panties with koon:) she also likes posting sexy selfies on instagram and getting lots of likes she is not a courgore shes only talked to a coupleof 8th graders in entier life.... she is going to have all the guys make it rain on her... she has a dog named lilly and has recenltly lost a friend named houdini... my grandmother has the biggest dog on the planet her name is dora and she can not explore... stone--170.185.68.19 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)--170.185.68.19 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)--170.185.68.19 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) can explore many THINGS!!!!!! Ŷ