Talk:Fluorine

For the former Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides subsection, please see Talk:Fluorine/Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides.

A few points about refs (for future PR and FAC4, which will be at some point, and just describing how everything's done)

• They should be done with {{cite web}} or simlilar templates;
• In titles, every word that satisfies any of the below is capitalized:

• It is a noun, adjective, proverb, verb, number (such as Eight), pronoun, or a part of a phrasal verb (such as Hold On)
• It has no less than 5 letters in it.
• It is the first or the last title's word
• It is a the first word after a — or :

Note that journal publications are special in this sense: these criteria do not apply for them, except the last one; except for this case, journal article titles should be written as a piece of usual text.

• Accessdates are done in YYYY-MM-DD format.
• Page range is standardized to the last two digit standard, such as 4326—84. When there is a difference in the third, fourth, etc. figure, use it as 4326—484, or 4567—5011.
• Will add more when something comes to mind. I'm not adding a timestamp to make sure this text will not be archived. If a bot does so, please remove it.

TCO fluorine to do list

1. CE from front to back. (to get me familiar with the material, fix some degredation, fix some second langauge mistakes [no offense, amazingly better than I can do in any second language]. (in progress)

1.5. Spellcheck, offline.

2. convert gallery views to bordered wikitables (in progress).

3. fact check (100%). Will require a uni library trip as well as research requests.

3.5. Resolve all hidden comments

4. Check infobox, categories, pics, etc. (side matters).

5. Check reference formatting.

5.5. Check dab and first linking throughout article.

---

6. Get a prose grandmaster (likely Wehwalt) and twist his anti-science arm into going through the article. Pay him back somehow on some of his articles.

7. Get a Fifelfoo ref format check.

8. At that time, should be OK for R8r to renom for FAC with SandyGeorgia recused.

Subpage for ref checking

Working page set up to get this done.

User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012

To be incorporated (maybe)

HF as a way to find hydrogen--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of chronic fluorine assumption on humans and other animals

Many studies are revealing at least the possibility that chronic fluorine assumption in quantities as low as 2.5 mg/L in drinking water may lead to impairments on the development of cognitive faculties. The academic literature is vast and a very exhaustive list of publications can be found at: http://www.fluoridealertXXX.org/health/brain/ (remove the XXX)

It is my humble opinion that this information must be included in the article. What do you think?

Also, why the site i cite (that i'm only using as a "collection" of papers) is blacklisted? 79.23.218.220 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That probably isn't very relevant to this particular article. It is more appropriate to be discussed in the context of the related articles fluoride, water fluoridation, or water fluoridation controversy. The link fluoridealert.org has been blacklisted apparently because of repeated linkspamming. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

i think we could, actually. But to get a good composition, much'd have to be changed. And space problem worries me. It's not a yes nor a no. I'll have in mind: we'll see, I promise, okay?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.218.220 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

bond order

Sources I find in English just say that Br2, Cl2, I2 all have bond order of one. What does "bond order" really mean (is it a formalism like formal charge or something measurable or calculatable with quantum mechanics?) And what is the primary source proving the higher than single? Or is this sort of squishy like taxonomy of animals? 64.134.168.97 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This mainly relies on the inner (non-valence) electrons' interactions, I believe.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the argument. But MO theory does not give more than single bond given no disparity in energy levels. Is there observed backbonding (how?) And I sayagain the English sources don't support. Also, is bond order a formalism or does it really correspond to something?64.134.168.97 (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From bond order: "Furthermore, bond orders of 1.1, for example, can arise under complex scenarios and essentially refer to bond strength relative to bonds with order 1." I found the info in a university studentbook. Perhaps if you look into something similar in English, you'll find it as well. However, I don't really claim to understand, would also love to find out how it works (will sometime), but if you ask if it works, it works.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See Bond order for an overview. --Ben (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ALL the general chem and inorganic chem textbooks that I googled said that the bond order was 1. Of course they are discussing things in the context of MO and VSEPR and basically talking about 1 versus 2 (except perhaps simple resonance structures).

If we have some more fancy interpretation, I really think we need a science paper backing it. Not a textbook. A textbook is fine for something obvious (like fluorine has 9 electrons). But for something that is esoteric (and that not every textbook shows), we really ought to have something sourcing it that is more scientifically strong (a peer reviewed paper). I would say to either back up the BO point with a real science paper or cut it.

Also, I found something saying that Cl2 (can't find it now, but was a science website) has a bond order of less than 1. Perhaps F2 is less than one also (for instance it tends to cleave like a peroxide). Donno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

N in +5 formal charge

Agreed that N2O5 has N in +5 FC. Also, nitrate ion (NO3-) is a very common species...with N in +5 FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I could agree a year ago. But don't now. First, formal charge and oxidation state are different things. Consider SbF⁻
₆. The oxidation state of Sb is +5, the formal charge on Sb is -1. Next. For the oxidation state of +5, you need five bonds, no less. If you look at the molecule structure, you won't notice five full bonds. Only partial. The Lewis structure in the article shows four bonds. Nitrates don't have five bonds either. This is because nitrogen does not wish to get its octet expanded. Five bonds mean 10 electrons. If you want to learn more about nitrogen's octet, read chapter four of [1].--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In SbF6- (or SbF5), the formal charge is +5. Discussing an oxidation state of nitrogen in a covalently bonded molecule is a bit of a misnomer anyway. FC is the concept you want. N2O5 is certainly not a molecule composed of +5 ions of N and -2 ions of oxygen. There is no requirement for an equal number of bonds to an oxidation state. For one thing, you can have an ionically bonded compound. Consider UO2 (fluorite structure). The oxidation state of U is +4. but it has 8 nearest neighbors of oxygen.64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the two. Have a look at formal charge and the example given in there (CO2: formal charges are 0, OSs are -2 and +4 (O/C)). And given you say N2O5 got no ions in the structure (which is entirely correct), the should be no charges, at least not that high, there are polar molecules, of course. Charges are characteristic to ions mainly, not OSs. OSs apply to both ionic and covalent compounds. Charges only to ionic. Is UO2 ionic? If so, the OSs and charges should be the same. The surrounding negative oxygens surround well from all sides, and they all 8 want to meet the U (plus always wants the minus, you know it) the same and are equally away, thus it "moves" toward al oxygens the same, actually staying where it is standing (vector sum gives zero). (a little oversimplification and not 100% scientistproof, but should be gettable) The point is, its stability (doesn't sublime at r.t., for example) comes from charges. Now consider a covalent solid (no charges), it sublimes way more readily.

The charge on Sb is -1. 5 "standard" electrons - (5 electrons involved in bonding + 0 from the lone pairs + 1 extra from the ion charge) = 5-6=-1.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I had them backwards. Nitrate and NO3- will have N in +5 oxidation state, then.75.88.87.190 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I just got it how N manages to have +5. Delocalization confused me. Thankfully, I've found an easy explanation using simplified structures. You were right about +5, and I learned something new:) thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

the nanocrystals

Reading the entire article, it is very clear that the nanocrystals are positioned as a possible future help for babies. No, they are not helping babies yet...but that is why the word "may" is in there. the actual testing is on animals...but that is normal for medical R&D in initial stages. There is definitely no impression that they are being developed for veterinary uses! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, I guess. I'll be OK with it if we pick some other wording up (not changing your point). Watch--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead organization challenge

1. The lead has too many paras now with the addition of a whole para on organismal use of fluorine. We are restricted to 4, but now have 5. My vote would be to just cut this stuff, other than a mention of dental fluoride. The fluoracetate plants are a very minor oddity. Even the comment about "not used by mammals" is not really needed. Since, we are so bandwidth limited, better to use the space for positive information, not negative. If we want to keep that para, we will have to merge the other 4 down to 3 (hard). I really hate Wiki disputs and don't want anyone to feel bad...so prefer not to cut someone's work...but...welll...good luck with reducing those other paras.  ;)

Writing the lead is always difficult given the 4 para limit, desire for unified paras, and then the breadth of the topic.

My initial lead was basically organized:

Para 1: Characteristics and occurence

Para 2: History, fluorine gas isolation and usage.

Para 3: Inorganic fluoride chemistry and applications.

Para 4: Organic flurine chemistry and applications.

I think we can basically make this work. I would describe fluoride under inorganic applications (maybe a little more positive and including both toothpaste and water fluoridation links). Would cut the bio stuff.  :-( I do want to change my own lead and make a comment about the extreme reactivity (we are lacking it) in para one, along with the "most electronegative). That sort of needs to be up front. I can cut the fluorine martyrs. Put them in for sex appeal, but better to be more economical.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Bleh. The world will not end if you have a 5 paragraph lede, so long as it's not too long. WP:IGNOREALLRULES. SBHarris 03:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I like you man. Come be a wiki-rebel like me.  ;-)64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that could be one approach. The article is very long and having a 5 or even six para essay not unreasonable. I still question a whole para on organismal uses. Rather have a whole para on bio aspects, then. (we sort of do that inside the article, though.)64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's an interaction with life/bio, either as pharmaceutical or poison or metabolic use, we traditionally reserve the last paragraph for that. See bromine, chromium, gallium, vanadium, etc, etc. Even sulfur. One could add the pharmaceuticals to that last paragraph, perhaps (with non pharm apps elsewhere), but I think we're stuck with it. If you can't stand a total of 5, that leaves you with 3 others. I think inorganic and organic chem could be one paragraph, particularly as the inorganic chem is just F- and F2, and we can discuss that in the minerology/history/occurance paragraph. SBHarris 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel like each element sort of has its own "story". I think the basic organization is helpful, to start with, but once we get into the content, we always find good reasons to modify the organization to fit the specific element. Hurts us if we are too cookie cutter and identical.

I just don't think the fluoroacetate 40 species are really that important. This element's story is not about bio-usage. That said, I think you can totally have what you want. Just at least bulk the para up with the pharma and other bio stuff. Go ahead and take a crack at writing it how you want. Also, I can live with 5 paras.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I myself have argued that we should not straightjacket element stories into one form but let them flow in a natural order if they have an obvious one, I can't really argue with your approach here. I couldn't resist adding the use of fluorine by some bacteria and plants, but not mammals in metabolism. It's not a big part of the fluorine story, granted, but it's one of the first questions people have about any element-- is it used by life? We're biocentric critters. SBHarris 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think it would fit better at the end of the orgo paragraph. Something along the lines of...

"...Lipitor and Prozac are notable examples. While a few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons, fluorine has no metabolic role in mammals. However, fluoride ion is used in toothpastes and municipal water supplies to reduce tooth decay."

64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)