Talk:Ammonia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments on FAC status

... more tables ... :-/ hmm ... -- Tarquin 00:15 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Yeah, another 23. Sorry Tarquin, but I don't think bullet lists with dashes are going to work here. -- Tim

Question

Dear Sir,

As a process engineer, i have one question regarding Ammonia.

one reactor/ vessel having amonia. if during rainfall amonia gas leakages and mixed with rain water what possible reaction might occur? and is it dangeraous to structure steel? what possible measures to be taken?

Bhavin SHeth bhavin_sheth@rediffmail.com

Hello Bhavin, you probably shouldn't really be getting your engineering advice from random strangers on the 'net (check our disclaimer). However FWIW, at room temperature ammonia has no effect on steel (in fact steel is one of the preferred materials for handling ammonia), nor on most other structural materials (it might bleach paints, etc). It will however severely corrode copper alloys and zinc (including galvanising on the steel). Your first concern in a leak should be human toxicity. Fortunately however your leak apparently occurred in rain, and ammonia is so extremely water soluble it is unlikely much gas failed to dissolve into the water. So your second concern should be what is now going to happen to the now alkaline run off? If it escapes into a confined body of water, you may end up with a fishkill. Securiger 11:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recommendation

I think the crystal structure should be removed from the table. In standard conditions ammonia isn't a crystal. In other conditions almost any structure may be possible. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

N2H3

Where does N2H3 fit in the scheme of things?--nixie 02:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is a stable molecule having the formula N₂H₃. It seems to me to be a part of a hydrazine molecule. Hydrazine has the formula N₂H₄. It is a liquid compound at room temperature. One of the hydrogens on it could be substituted by another group to give a substituted hydrazine like MonoMethylHydrazine CH₃-N₂H₃. Then the molecule would have an -N₂H₃ functional group. How is this relevant to ammonia? There just some ammonia like groups or compounds, that's mostly about it. I know hydrazine at very high temperatures will decompose to form ammonia. Probably some compounds with the -N₂H₃ group would also decompose at high temperature to form some ammonia. H Padleckas 05:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

This article could do with some further updating and tightening up. Should it be put up for Peer Review? Wim van Dorst 20:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC).

I started a minor overhaul of this article offline and never got around to finishing it. Let me see if I can finish my changes in a while (couple days maybe). I agree it could use some modifications. H Padleckas 21:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just made some of these changes I mentioned above, including expanding some chemistry discussion and use of ammonia as a refrigerant. Other things I would like to cover in this Ammonia article are to improve the organic compounds discussion slightly, to mention ammonia as a ligand for such metal cation complexes as Ag(NH₃)₂⁺, Cu(NH₃)₂⁺⁺, and
Ni(NH₃)₂⁺⁺, mentioning Tollen's Reagent, and the discuss ammonia as a very weak acid forming the "amide" ion (in addition to ammonia being a base forming ammonium ions). These changes I have yet to formulate. H Padleckas 01:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have quite a list of changes to make to this article, but still no good sections on ligand properties and solvant behaviour. I think we should keep an eye on this one for possible FA status. Physchim62 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Peer review is now complete, and this is now an A-class article according to WP:Chem, after a lot of work by Physchim62. Thanks PC! It could certainly be an FA candidate, but let's wait till HCl (that is, hydronium chloride solution) is FA distant history, as we need an organic or something for our next FA candidate. Walkerma 18:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section on ammonia as an acid. User:Nightvid

It is not consistent to refer to acids as ammonium salts in ammonia

In water, even strong acids such as hydrochloric acid are still called such, like hydrochloric acid and written as HCl, not called hydronium chloride and written as H₃OCl, even though they are essentially completely dissociated into such. Therefore, hydrochloric acid in liquid ammonia should be called hydrochloric acid, not ammonium chloride. If you call it ammonium chloride in ammonia, you must call it hydronium chloride in water - or else you're being inconsistent. So, I choose to refer to "ammonium acetate" and "ammonium nitrate" dissolved in liquid ammonia as "acetic acid" and "nitric acid", respectively. After all, we don't call aqueous nitric acid solutions "hydronium nitrate" or aqueous acetic acid solutions "hydronium acetate". So, I rightfully choose to put acid names up as well. If you believe otherwise, please explain your logic. User:Nightvid

Chemical nomenclature is not an exact science, as you will realise from a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). I do not feel under any obligation to be "consistent" in the sense that you imply, merely to be clear and unambiguous. The Bronsted theory of acidity as applied to non-aqueous solvents is a fascinating topic which should be discussed in more depth in Wikipedia, but I cannot see what is gained by using the same name to refer to both HCl and NH₄Cl. Such a usage would break the fundamental IUPAC rule of nomenclature, namely that each name should map to a single, unique structure. Physchim62 16:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a second misconception in your arguement: the nomenclature of aqueous acids is also "inconsistent" by your criteria. You correctly point out that we do not talk of hydronium nitrate for aqueous nitric acid, even though it is completely ionized: in this case, the acid (potential proton donor) is the hydronium ion, the strongest acid which can exist in aqueous solution. We do not talk of hydronium acetate as this is almost never the majority species in aqueous solution: the majority proton donor is the MeCOOH molecule. Incedentally, we do refer to hydronium salts in the rare cases in which they are isolated as distinct crystalline compounds, e.g. hydronium perchlorate, H₃O⁺ClO₄⁻ (crystallographically characterized).

The different theories of acidity are briefly dealt with in acid. I will pull together a couple of paragraphs on their transposition to non-aqueous solvants and use it to start the article Inorganic non-aqueous solvant (watch this link!).

As for formulae, French school inspectors require teachers to write hydrochloric acid as (H₃O⁺, Cl⁻): I don't agree with this, but I have yet to convince them otherwise! Physchim62 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it would not be using the same name to refer to HCl and NH₄Cl, but rather to call solutions containing NH₄⁺ and Cl^- ions in liquid NH₃ "HCl" if solutions containing H₃O⁺ and Cl^- in liquid H₂O are called "HCl". Certainly writing HCl(am) indicates dissociation into NH₄⁺ and Cl^- ions as much as HCl(aq) indicates H₃O⁺ and Cl^- ions (am means ammine solution, or solution in liquid ammonia). In addition, there are already chemical names in existence which refer to more than one thing. The term "amide" for example, refers to both organic compounds with the functional group -CONH₂, and to ionic compounds with the anion NH₂^-.

You're right about acetic acid being weak in water, so it does make sense to write it in the molecular form (CH₃COOH). However, to write aqueous nitric acid as "HNO₃" is not any better than writing ammine nitric acid ("ammonium nitrate") as "HNO₃". Also, why is hydronium perchlorate only called such if crystallized? Perchloric acid is a strong acid, so aqueous solutions will contain H₃O⁺ and ClO₄^- ions, and [essentially] zero HClO₄ molecules. If you write aqueous solutions as "HClO₄", then you should also write ammine perchloric acid ("ammonium perchlorate") as "HClO₄", and only when it is isolated, write it as "NH₄ClO₄".

Finally, I do respect that chemical names are conventions. Maybe if we lived on a planet where the oceans were made of liquid ammonia and life was based on ammine solutions, we would write "HCl" and "HNO₃" for ammine solution containing ammonium and (chloride or nitrate) ions, respectively. I guess I am just really tired of people who don't realize that the water and the ammine solutions of acids are perfectly analogous. User:Nightvid

---

solvent, not solvant (enough-nOgen French corruptions of Latin); Whoever you are above, sign your comments. Try zH₃N·N₂O₅ ↔ z-1H₃N·H₃N₃O₅ ↔ z-1H₃N·H₂O·HN₃O₄ ↔ yH₃N·(H₂O·HNO₃·N₂O)·z-1-yH₃N and zH₂O·N₂O₅ ↔ z-1H₂O·2HNO₃. Or N₂O₅(aq) and N₂O₅(am) for short. :P lysdexia 08:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I thought I knew chemistry, but now I'm feeling humble! Anyway, I see where you are coming from, but I must point out that if you always exclude all solvent formula units, then sugar water is simply C(aq). This seems farfetched to me!

The equilibrium reactions you're mentioning are not simple Bronsted-Lowry acid-base reactions. They are, as a matter of fact, Lewis acid-base reactions. I certainly was not thinking of this, but you definitely have a valid point. Maybe we should write all aqueous acids and bases as their most dehydrated form, and ammine acids and bases as their most "deamminated" form. This would, interestingly, cause some compounds to be written in a form that resembles nonexistent/very unstable compounds. For instance, in this system, a solution of potassium amide (KNH₂) in liquid ammonia would be written as K₃N(am), or ammine potassium nitride. The compound potassium nitride itself is unstable, pure K₃N decomposing quickly into potassium metal and nitrogen gas. Nevertheless, I have to say, I am very impressed with your idea.

It makes the issue far simpler to discuss only aqueous acids which contain no oxygen, and ammine acids which contain no nitrogen. The hydrohalic acids work well for comparisons, as they contain no oxygen or nitrogen. All four of them (HF, HCl, HBr, HI) are strong acids in liquid ammonia, and all of them except HF are strong acids in water.

Sugar water is mostly H₂CC₄CO(aq). It doesn't quite dissociate because carbon is multivalent, and the H-C bonds are strong. But adding a reagent would get your C(aq). My makeover of these chemical forms weren't much from "knowing chemistry", as how it's tauht, but from thinking objectively and fundamentally what happens. Lewis reactions can easily be translated fro language from the alchemical age, because my intermolecular formulæ preserve the identities of the reactants: "chemistry complaints" http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/6493. (Notice that I'm reforming English also.) lysdexia 12:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

By convention, salts containing the ammonium ion are referred to as "acid salts" in the chemistry books I've been exposed to. I'm tweaking the article text to reflect this, and removing anon's large modification on this topic. As for "consistency", if chemical names were consistent, figuring out how many oxygen atoms were being described with the hypo-/per-/-ous/-ic system would be a lot less confusing. Convention trumps consistency, as the goal is to produce an article that's readable. --Christopher Thomas 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like I hadn't checked the discussion as thoroughly as I should have, but I've done so now. After review, it still looked like a good idea to back out anon's changes (as they just duplicated statements already in the article). I've left the rest of the text as-is. I've only heard the term "acid salt" applied to aqueous solutions, so I have no idea if it's appropriate for use in ammonia (not adding it).

Ammonium nitrate in NH₃ as nitric acid? Do you suppose that the NH₄ disassociates into NH₃^- and H⁺ ? I bet that doesn't happen! Does NH₃ disassociate into NH₂^- and H⁺ ? Something doesn't add up. Scot.parker 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, NH₄⁺(am) will not dissociate into H⁺(am) and NH₃(l), but neither will H₃O⁺(aq) dissociate into H⁺(aq) and H₂O(l). Bare protons are VERY unstable. The point is this: Ammonium ions in (liquid) ammonia are analogous to hydronium ions in water, and amide ions(NH₂^-) in ammonia are analogous to hydroxide ions in water.

The whole of acid-base chemistry has its parallel in liquid ammonia. We write aqueous hydrochloric, nitric, and perchloric acids as HCl, HNO₃, and HClO₄, respectively, rather than H₃OCl, H₃ONO₃, H₃OClO₄, despite the fact that as strong acids they exist in the ionized state. Thus we should do likewise for the ammine counterparts, that is, ammine solutions of the aforementioned acids we should also write as HCl, HNO₃, and HClO₄, respectively, even though they are strong acids and would be totally dissociated. If you call solutions containing ammonium ions, with chloride, nitrate, or perchlorate ions, in liquid ammonia, as not acids but ammonium salts with formulas NH₄Cl, NH₄NO₃, and NH₄ClO₄, then it's fine, but then you should also refer to aqueous solutions with hydronium ions as not acids but hydronium salts. Either you call them salts of the protonated solvent, or you call them acids. It is completely nonsensical to use the former for ammine solutions and the latter for aqueous solutions. Make sense?

-User: Nightvid—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.111.168 (talk • contribs)

After Bite Question

the active ingredient in After Bite is ammonia, can anyone tell me how this works?

This seems strange, ammonia is known to be a skin irritant, certainly not what you want when you are trying to deal with skin irritation!

Many insect stings are acidic, so a dilute solution of ammonia (or sodium bicarbonate) will neutralise them. I should take this to the reference desk for a fuller answer. Physchim62 07:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Most insect and animal toxins are proteins. If you can change the shape of the protein (denature) it is rendered ineffective. This can be accomplished by means of acids, bases, or heat. For example if you get stung by a Portuguese man-of-war you can piss on the wound or apply very hot water. As regards bee stings the site http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00014.htm mentions the presence of a "highly basic peptide". It is interesting since the antidote, ammonium hydroxide, is also basic. Scot.parker 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anhydrous Ammonia as Fertilizer

Why doesn't this page address this? Seems it's a hot topic these days as North America runs out of natural gas causing the price of anhydrous ammonia for fertilizer to increase by more than 250% in a few years.

Why Are Nitrogen Prices So High? by Eddie Funderburg

ammonium or ammonic, not ammonia that is a gas lysdexia 06:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong formula

All ammonia and ammonic compound formular names are wrong: The elements should be listed in order of increasing electronegativity when they have little or no substructure. Hence, ammonia should be written as H₃N and hudrazine H₄N₂, and so on. I want to rewrite all such formulæ in the article. (Methane's and alkanes' and other hudrocarbons' formulæ are also wrong.) lysdexia 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By convention, the "H" is written first only for acids. So cyanoform (a strong acid) could be written as HC₄N₃, but ammonia is not an acid of appreciable strength, so is not written as H₃N. User:Nightvid

The normal way of writing ammonia is NH₃, as you can see from a Google search that shows 1.7 million hits. H₃N gives 80,000 hits, and most of those are not relating to the chemical compound ammonia. We don't follow rules blindly, we take into account common usage. These formulae should not be changed. Walkerma 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite an original source saying that the leading H is only used if the compound is more acidic than water, rather than if the H is more basic than the lagging elements in the compound? As I've explained, I don't follow the rule "blindly"; rather the common usage is what is blind. lysdexia 12:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User Lysdexia doesn't follow the common sense approach to co-operation nor to Wikipedia politeness. Therefore I recommend that his comment are ignored. Read his/her talk page (there's no user page) for comments by others, corroborating my recommendation. Wim van Dorst 22:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC).

I agree that his/her insistance on an original source (when s/he provides none) is a breach of WP:FAITH, but I shall still rise to the challenge. IUPAC Recommendation IR-4.4.2.1 states: "If electronegativity is taken as the ordering principle in a formula or a part of a formula, the atomic symbols are cited according to relative electronegativities, the least electronegative element being cited first." (italics in original) The nitrogen in ammonia is less electronegative than hydrogen, as can be seen from the tendancy to donate electrons to an H⁺ ion to form an ammonium ion (and from its lack of acidity). If more indications were needed, the following paragraph (Recommendation IR-4.4.2.2, dealing with the Hill system of chemical formulae) states: "The group NH₄ is treated as a single symbol". Wikipedia follows IUPAC recommendations where possible. Physchim62 08:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that lysdexia is being rude, but I will say that http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/chemistry/chapter13.rhtml is a good starting point. User:Nightvid

Physchim62, I'm sorry, but it is not true that the nitrogen in ammonia is less electronegative than hydrogen. Ammonia is a polar molecule with hydrogens carrying one partial positive charge each and nitrogen carrying three partial negative charges. See http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/212inorganic.html .

The formation of the ammonium ion does not involve any change in oxidation state, it is an acid-base reaction. The electrons still belong to the nitrogen.

Wim: his -> one's; Physchim62: insistence, tendency. There's nothing wrong with my co-operation, and what I do has nothing to do with WP:FAITH. That page has to do with assuming the intention of other editors, not with whom should prove what first nor whether I may criticize authorities. Besides, no one asked me for such a source. Ye are calling me rude only because I am the only person with the brains to see that common knowledge and conventions are wrong, and have the ethics to say so. The PDF said that there were only two principles for ordering, yet didn't even include structure as one even thouh it later admitted groups such as OH and NH₄; it is poorly written in that respect. Putting H in front for acids wasn't even enforced there. NH₃ and CH₄ seem to be no more than weak attempts at a central structural formula. With H's electronegativity at 2.20, C's at 2.55, and N's at 3.04, H is the loser and goes first. Pauling would say so if he were alive. lysdexia 21:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Linus Pauling would have known that the electronegativity of an atom depends on its molecular environment (he was the first to point this out; in this his electronegativities differ from the Mulliken scale or the Allred-Rochow scale). In particular, elecronegativity increases with increasing oxidation number. In Nature of the Chemical Bond he was able to quantitatively demonstrate this for tin and lead, where he had sufficient data to quote different electronegativities for the +2 and +4 oxidation states. As for common knowledge, it is also common knowledge that ammonia is very rarely acidic but will freely "donate" its lone pair to a hydrogen ion: this is not the case in nitrous acid, for example. Convention can never be wrong; it either exists or it doesn't and it's either followed or not. In this case the convention exists and is almost universially followed in chemical publications. I see no reason for Wikipedia to be different (see WP:POINT). Incidentally, why do you insist on calling this molecule ammonia? It's systematic name is azane.... Physchim62 09:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that both ammonia and nitrous acid are amphoteric, meaning that they can act as an acid or as a base. Ammonia behaves as a base in water, but behaves as an acid when added to lithium nitride. Nitrous acid behaves as an acid in water, but would probably behave as a base (accept a proton) if added to anhydrous perchloric acid. The thing is, ANY molecule which contains one or more H atoms is an acid, however weak, and ANY molecule which contains one or more unshared pairs of electrons is a base, however weak. This doesn't mean that they can behave as such in water, however. But it doesn't make any more sense, fundamentally speaking, to choose water as your solvent than it does to choose either molten lithium nitride or anhydrous perchloric acid. By convention, though, if it doesn't behave as an acid in water, the "H" is NOT written first. User: Nightvid

If the formula were written to sort electronegativity by successive groups, then this would be the order: N(+) → HN(+) → HHN(+,-) → HHNH (-,+) → HHNHH⁺. Without being given to water, ammonia is still mostly electronegative because it has two electron donors and one proton donor, as shown by the signs in the former groups. And, as nitrogen starts out electronegative, it doesn't matter if however many free bases stick to it because, as they are free, they have a nonzero attraction to the unfilled partial charges. Nitrogen will, however, fill up with only three bases because their freedom is broken by splitting their energy levels and raising their entropy. And, if "conventional" formulæ were followed, then the ammonium ion would be written last because of its greater tendency to be a proton donor when offered a choice between proton and electron, even thouh it would still take another proton on its other orbital end: HONH₄.

What you said about convention is rubbish. I wasn't talking about whether something is convention, but with whether it should be a convention. (It's → Its) Even if everyone writes the formula wrong, Wikipedia may still report that it is written wrong, and why and how, given the rules that are a greater deciding factor than conventions. I've seen borane, alkane, silane, azane, germane, and even oxane before, but I've seen no acknowledging of -ane used in dictionaries other than with carbon; the etumologies say that it's a variant of -ene, -ine, and -one. Besides, other names that contradict -ane are fosfine (Yes, that's how it should be spelt.) and arsine. At first, the different ending looks to do with saturation and bond order, but looking at a table with electronegativity it more importantly has to do with whether H becomes positive or negative. In most haps, it becomes positive, going in front of the formula, and taking an -ane. Otherwise it's a hudride or maybe -ine. So silane, borane, and germane are wrong. Carbane and azane and oxane are riht, becoming carbanium, azanium, and oxanium in acid. If one wants to use them in terms of their central or electropositive atom, then those would be the names. But as molecules and materials, one may still say methane, ammonia, and water/aqua/hudros.

Does water behave as acid in water? It behaves as both, so why don't chemists use HOH instead of H₂O? I'd expect something like "H₂O" to be a superbase! The convention of putting H in front for acids in water is accidental, because there are so many common acids, and that's where the H normally would go despite its behaving in water. lysdexia 21:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. FTI, IUPAC recommends the use of phosphane, arsane and stibane: Wikipedia uses the more common varients phosphine etc. There is no justification for saying that the formula NH₃ is "wrong" in Wikipedia: this may be your personal view and you are welcome to debate it—elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The molecular formula of ammonia is NH₃, the structural formula is H₃N. Molecular formula is normally used as a shorthand, so as to prevent long carbon compounds from having to be written out longhand. Eg. C₂H₄ instead of CH₂CH₂

Ammonia as an asthma sensitizer?

Does anyone know if exposure to ammonia can cause asthma? I see it is reported as a respiratory irritant, but does this do any long term harm? I ask because when I was at school, age 15 or so, I was called upon to demonstrate an experiment where nylon was formed from some monomer material dissolved in concentrated ammonia - you can pull out the nylon polymer material using a glass rod - science teachers probably recognise the experiment I am talking about. However, due to the fume cupboard being broken, I inhaled a lot of the ammonia - the exposure went on for maybe 3 or 4 hours, and I lost my sense of smell afterwards for about a week... however, longer term I developed mild asthma and a sensitivity to other substances such as sulphites (E220) which I don't recall ever having had prior to the ammonia thing. I just wondered if there is any evidence that this might have been a causal factor? Graham 04:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis and production section

I felt that the synthesis and production section was out of date and too limited. So I revised it completely to make it representative of modern ammonia synthesis technology. I also added a few statistics about worldwide production rates and how much is used for fertilizer. mbeychok 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Adsorbers is correct

In the Synthesis and Production section, someone changed the word "adsorbers" to "absorbers". I reverted back to "adsorbers" because that is the correct word for the vessels that use an adsorption medium in an adsorption process to adsorb the carbon dioxide. See this discussion by one of the leading designers and constructors of PSA units and this in the Chemical Processing magazine. Adsorption and absorption are two different processes. - mbeychok 04:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW

This article is coming on nicely. I would like to expand the history section, and Encarta has a nice section on the history of it, and does not require payment to access it. Would Encarta make a good reference? Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Redox properties of liquid ammonia

Could somebody link the E° to an appropriate page that explains this unit? Thank you. — RJH 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Physchim62 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can someone help me identify the compound NH3SO2? I cannot find it anywhere and I am not sure what it is or what it is called. Thanks a lot.

Looks a bit like Ammonium sulfate, but its formula is (NH₄)₂SO₄. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it might be that or ammonium sulphide but neither are the forumla of the compound. I'm stumped at what it can be, I recently came across it at university but had never heard of it prior to that.

Might you be thinking of sulfamic acid? Its formula is NH₃SO₃. --Ben 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

No it definately had only two oxygens...I think it might be a variation of an sulfonamide, but I can't find the specific molecule anywhere.

It's probably H2NS(=O)OH, called amidosulfurous acid, amidosulfinic acid, imidosulfurous acid, or sulfamous acid. Itub 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor Additions

Would anyone be against adding a "See Also" link to the Biosynthesis section? I cant shake the feeling that that section is just too small especially since ammonia has such a large part in nitrogen waste removal in a significant number of animals. I propose we add one of the following links Urea_cycle or Nitrogen_cycle just as sort of a side note. Oh and I had a question for Editors who mainly deal with Science pages: is it a policy to make compound pages focus more on the Chemistry side with minor notes to Biology? Nothing against it, just curious.--Jonthecheet 08:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the addition of a short "See also" section to Biosynthesis, for the reasons you state: if the section cannot be short (a couple of links), we should work on a seperate Biochemistry of ammonia article where its importance can be discused at greater length. The balance between chemistry and biology is often a problem on articles about chemicals: join in discussions at WP:Chem if you think there is too much bias one way or the other, we always welcome new input! Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a small section about the role of ammonia in biologic systems and medicine. Obviously, an entire article about the biochemistry is in order as has been suggested, but I think that either way a featured article on ammonia written in summary style should include at least as much that was added. Please feel free to let me know how this fits - I didn't touch the biosynthesis section because it seemed wed to the synthesis section and I did not want to disrupt the flow there. InvictaHOG 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Reference

The last sentence in the "Properties" section includes "(C.E. Cleeton and N.H. Williams, 1934)" which is not included in either the "Reference" section or the "Bibliography" section. I think it should be included in one or the other and is it a book, a journal article or what? - mbeychok 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaction with halogens

The article states that ammonia reacts violently with halogens. I thought that (solutions of) ammonia react(s) to form explosive compounds such as nitrogen triiodide, but does not cause a violent reaction. Is it different for anhydrous (gaseous) ammonia? The article isn't clear which form is being discussed.--24.16.148.75 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dry distillation production lacks reference. Actually reference is Haber process [10]. Miss pages in the reference [8] for distillation processes for Ammonia production.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.116.20 (talk • contribs) 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Uses?

why is ammonia not mentioned as a household chemical under "uses". The first time I see it mentioned as such is in the "safety precautions" section. I bet most layman's experience with ammonia is with Windex. --Kvuo 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ammonium hydroxide

Do we really need a separate article on aqueous solutions of ammonia? If so, then several sections of this article (for example Ammonia#Household use) should be moved there. Personally I think the separation is silly. —Keenan Pepper 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I support your suggestion of merging the two and killing off the ammonium hydroxide one. Also it may be timely to undertake mergers of HBr and hydrobromic and HCl, etc. But first things first.--Smokefoot 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the merger. The ammonium hydroxide article doesen't say much that is not already in the ammonia article anyway. Itub 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the ammonium hydroxide aricle isn't doing any harm where it is, so long as it clearly points out that it refers to a non-existant chemical! If we merge, we would have to flag it in the first paragraph (and rather better than is done at present). Ammonium hydroxide is a common synonym for aqueous ammonia, common enough to deserve to be explained. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see Physchim62's point, having the article does no harm and might even help some. I edited NH4OH and indicated that the main article is ammonia. --Smokefoot 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62 and I oppose the merger. Aqua ammonia is widely used in industry and that terminolgy is in common usage there. I was quite surprised to see that Wikipedia had no article with that title. So I created a redirect from Aqua ammonia to Ammonium hydroxide. - mbeychok 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So what about moving "Household use" etc. there? Household ammonia is definitely not anhydrous, so if there are two articles, it belongs in the one about the aqueous solution. —Keenan Pepper 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, that's a good idea. Why not do it? - mbeychok 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to move the "Household use" and "Laboratory use of ammonia solutions" sections from the long Ammonia article to the short Ammonium hydroxide article. A sentence or two can be left in its place in the Ammonia article linking/directing the reader to Ammonium hydroxide. It's hard for me to find anything else that can easily be moved out of Ammonia to somewhere else. H Padleckas 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose. There cannot help but be some crossover information between the two subjects, but if you can imagine an anhydrous chemistry wherein ammonia is used as a polar solvent instead of water; that chemistry would be vast and such information would be a bit overwhelming to someone who wishes to know just about ammonium hydroxide and it's chemistry within a water environment; a subject which also has the potential of being quite voluminous on it's own. Scot.parker 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the consensus seems to be clearly in favor of not merging the two articles. I will wait another 24 hours and, if there is no change in the consensus, I will delete the merger proposal tag. - mbeychok 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ammonia article has gotten quite long. Ammonia is the gas NH3, while ammonia water, often called ammonium hydroxide, is a chemical consisting of NH3 dissolved in water. In other words, they are different chemicals, although related of course, analogously to hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid which are separate articles, partly because of their length. I oppose a merger due to the length of the Ammonia article. I'm even thinking of ways to shorten this 45K long article by moving some stuff elsewhere. H Padleckas 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just created an Ammonia water page, making it a REDIRECT to Ammonium hydroxide. I think the Ammonium hydroxide article can eventually be expanded, covering topics such as dependence of properties on ammonia concentration.
H Padleckas 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

2 NH₄Cl + 2 CaO → CaCl₂ + Ca(OH)₂ + 2 NH₃

Is this a furnace reaction or an aqueous one? If aqueous then we should have

2 NH₄Cl + Ca(OH)₂ → CaCl₂ + 2 NH₄OH

The Ca(OH)₂ provides the alkalinity which drives the ammonia out of solution:

NH₄OH → H₂O + NH₃ ↑

I assume that this was meant to be an aqueous reaction since it would require no input of energy as would a furnace.

This reaction could occur in the solid state if hydrates were used, but yes it seems more likely to be used in solution. LoyalSoldier 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Solubility Table

The solubility of NaCl is given here as 3.0g per 100 parts water. 'The Handbook of Chemistry, by Lange gives a value of 35.7g @ 0°C, 39.8g @ 100°C. The heading at the top of Lange's book says, "solubility in 100 Parts" not 'per liter'. Perhaps someone, somewhere made a 'divide by ten' error.

I think the value in this table is for the solubility of NaCl in 100 g of liquid ammonia, not water. Itub 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed! Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, seems obvious now. What do you think of changing "Solubility of salts" to "Solubility in NH₃" or changing "g per 100g" to "g per 100g NH₃" just to make it a bit more dummy-proof? (I am really asking for it on this one) Scot.parker 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Be BOLD! (and thanks for bringing the problem up: it's not always easy to think of all the possible confusions when you're in the middle of writing a long article) Physchim62 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignition temperature

Should this be autoignition temperature? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theultimatejoeshmo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Reference (4) is broken

The external link in Reference (4) is either dead or broken. Should it be deleted? - mbeychok 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong base?

Under Base Definitions: "The degree to which ammonia forms the ammonium ion depends on the pH of the solution—at "physiological" pH (~7), about 99% of the ammonia molecules are protonated." ... Source? If anything, I would think that it means to say "about 99% of the ammonia molecules are NOT protonated" as ammonia is a relatively weak base. Lowe--81.233.253.191 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a simple calculation from values of the acid dissociation constant which, for NH₄⁺ is about 9.2. At pH 9.2, there is a 50:50 split between NH₄⁺ and NH₃. Physiological conditions are normally around pH 7.2, which means that there is roughly one hundred times as much NH₄⁺ as NH₃. Physchim62 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ammonia has a k_b value of about 1.75*10^-5 (Or mildly weak base). A solution of .200M Ammonia will produce a pH of about 11.26(Same concentration of Sodium Hydroxide is around 13.30) so that should give you an idea of how strong/weak it is. Even though it is a weak base it is still relatively strong. A weak base is just one that does not ionize completely, but that doesn't mean it would still be some what strong.LoyalSoldier 06:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While both LoyalSoldier and Physchim62 have provided relatively accurate calculations they do not solve the issue at hand. The section in question "The degree to which ammonia forms the ammonium ion depends on the pH of the solution—at "physiological" pH (~7), about 99% of the ammonia molecules are protonated." is referring to the protonation of ammonia. Physchim62's calculations are based on the deprotonation of ammonium, and show that ammonium is effectively a weak acid (as would be occurring in a solution of NH₄Cl). The relevant piece of information is the K_b which is approximately 1.78*10^-5. [NH₄⁺][OH^-]/[NH₃]=1.78*10^-5. Solving this equation for a 1M ammonia solution gives the result of approximately 0.42% protonated ammonia or ammonium ions (as opposed to the 99% stated). While LoyalSoldier is correct in his statement that "Ammonia will produce a pH of about 11.26(Same concentration of Sodium Hydroxide is around 13.30)" it should be remembered that this means that the Sodium Hydroxide solution is more than 100 times as strong as the ammonia solution. Cardinnus 11:00:, 20 April 2007 (UTC) *edit* Nevermind, I appear to have made a rather serious blunder in my reasoning. It seems that the section in question is referring to the necessary proportions of ammonia to ammonium in order to achieve a buffer solution with a pH of 7.23. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Ammonia and UV lights

I wanted to get a second set of hands on this one. I had heard that ammonia will undergo changes when exposed to Ultra Violet wave lengths. LoyalSoldier 04:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The kidneys secrete NH₄⁺ to neutralize excess acid?

This statement "The kidneys secrete NH₄⁺ to neutralize excess acid." does not make sense. I am not aware that ammonium can function as a proton acceptor. I believe the statement should be "The kidneys secrete NH₃ to neutralize excess acid." as indicted by this page NCBI Cardinnus 11:20, 20 April 2007

Mammalian kidneys do not usually excrete ammonia, precidely because it messes around with the buffering of various bodily fluids. Higher animals in fact go to great lengths to avoid producing ammonia internally, which is why excess nitrogenous bases are degraded to urea in mammals and uric acid in birds and reptiles. The only organisms which excrete ammonia as a normal condition are all aquatic. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, but I think the idea is that the kidneys produce ammonia when needed, to neutralize excess acid. This ammonia reacts with the acids that are present and soon turns into ammonium. That is, while the kidneys initially produced ammonia, what ultimately gets flushed down the toilet is ammonium. --Itub 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This process is mentioned briefly in acid-base homeostasis; apparently it is called ammoniagenesis, but we don't have an article about it yet. --Itub 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ammonium(NH4⁺) already has all of its orbitals filled and Hydrogen is not strong enough to hybridize more orbitals so it can not act as a base. Now Ammonia is easy for biological systems to make so it is not unreasonable for this to happen. Now I am not a biologist so don't quote me on that. LoyalSoldier 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with regard to toxicity of ammonia

Could someone please check on the contradictional statements regarding toxicity of ammonia ? In the top paragraph, it is stated, that it is non - toxic, non - flammable . In the paragraph dealing with the laboratory use of anhydrous ammonia the statement is " toxic , flammable gas " . Now what ? I remember having read that air concentrations of 1000 ppm can be fatal after minutes of exposure ... 82.212.38.13 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved this question by 82.212.38.13 to bottom of page which is the correct chronological location. As for the question regarding the inconsistent statements about the toxicity of ammonia, I have revised the lead-in paragraph of the Ammonia article to reflect the toxicity of ammonia and the hazards associated with transporting ammonia. - mbeychok 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

feature article

this article looks good enough to be a feature article. Do you think someone should submit it?

Ziphon 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bond Angle and Structure in Infobox

Hello,

The bond angle in the picture of ammonia is different from the bond angle listed underneath the picture. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be 107.5 or 107.8, but they should at least read the same thing. Also, I believe Terminus is an incorrect labeling of the molecular structure of ammonia, because a terminus is simply the end of a polymer molecule. Ammonia is not always found as a polymer, so I'm fairly certain it is not correct to label it with a terminus structure. The trigonal pyramidal shape mentioned in the article would be a more appropriate labeling. --Yerok 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree I would describe the molecular shape as trigonal pyramidal. Also in the structure section I haver added the point group with link to molecular symmetry (the point group page is more mathematical, the linked page gives a better intro to those that don't know what it means), if this isn't thought to be an appropriate addition someone can delete it but I felt it is a useful piece of info for the side panel thing.Azo bob 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re FAC status

Regarding the featured article candidacy: Much of the opening paragraph is about hazards. I realize that it is easier for non-chemical editors to comment on hazards than on the chemical technology, but still the overarching message might, IMHO, be on other aspects, some possibilities being its technological centrality (% of worlds energy dedicated to its manufacture, % of cmpds with N content), its remarkable properties (b.p. -33C, but can be handled with beakers), and the puzzle of nitrogenase. NH₃ is fairly benign, as chemicals go.--Smokefoot 12:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving your message to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ammonia, where the discussion about the candidacy itself is taking place. --Itub 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

References

A good reference for the production of ammonia before 1911 is: C. G. Tufts (1911). "Commercial Production of Ammonia". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 3 (5): 295–299. doi:10.1021/ie50029a006. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)--Stone 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And some possible references for the importance of ammonia in modern agriculture are: [1],[2]. According to the first one, roughly 40% of the world's dietary protein supply during the mid-1990s originated in the Haber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia. The second one quotes authors who say that this process was the most important technical invention of the 20th century, and that it makes possible to feed the current population of the world. --Itub 08:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reverting edit made to "Nitric Acid production" section

200.89.177.107, I reverted your edit where you changed "... one part ammonia to nine parts of air" (which was correct) to "... one part ammonia to nine parts of oxygen" (which is incorrect).

If you simply look at the equation , you will see that the feed mixture is 4 moles of ammonia and 5 moles of oxygen which is the same as saying parts of 4 parts of ammonia and 5 parts of oxygen (by volume)... which is the same as "one part of ammonia to 1.25 parts of oxygen".

Most industrial nitric acid production plants use ammonia and air rather than ammonia and oxygen. When air is used , that introduces nitrogen since air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Also, some excess air is used over and above the amount of air required to provide the the stoichiometric amount oxygen. The net result is that most industrial plants do indeed use about one part of ammonia and nine parts of air. So the article was correct before you incorrectly changed it. Regards, - mbeychok 02:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Include/Exclude

Ammonia indicator solution makes no sense.

Forgot cyanamide process for fixing nitrogen, used as fertilizer. The insoluble Calcium Cyanamide slowly dissolves into the soil. CaCO3 + C >heat> CaC2 + CO; CaC2 + N2 >heat> Ca2NCN + H2O >slow> H2NCN H2NCN + H2O > urea

Ammonia as fertilizer: Plants utilize nitrite not ammonia. Fertilizers containing ammonium salts depend on soil bacteria to oxidize ammonia to usable form. Ammonia is also toxic to most plants. The allusion to using anhydrous ammonia refers to injecting ammonia gas into fallow fields which in addition to increasing soil nitrogen also sterilizes the soil (compare field burning). (Downside only some of the nitrogen is retained, makes soil alkaline, kills beneficial soil organisms, toxic to people; but cheap pesticide on a dollar basis.)

The absorption refrigerator unit for recreational vehicle use (that I saw being modified for solar) used propane heat source to decompose ammonia solution as the "compressor".

Forensics case I worked on: chlorodiflouromethane (R22) was added to warehouse size ammonia freezer system. Boom!

Ammonia pollution can kill off some Salmonid fish at ppb levels.

Ammonia damages mucus membranes originating sense of smell (often permanently) so, like H2S, slowly increasing concentrations can become undetectably fatal.

Drug Enforcement Agency has Ammonia on their watch list because the blue lithium (batteries)solution is used in drug manufacture. Industrial users should protect themselves from theft.

to the IUPAC geek: Dictionaries and Encyclopedias do change to reflect popular usage. Ammonia is the common name, industrial name, name used by most laboratory chemists.

re electronegativity: nitrite does form complexes with the donor pair of electrons on the nitrogen, Sodium cobaltinitrite (Sodium Hexanitritocobaltate(III)), a test reagent for Potassium and Ammonium cations. (Admittedly there is backdonation from the cobalt d orbitals.)

ammonium nitrite >> N2 + H2O

sulfur dioxide is both lewis acid and base, 3HN:SO2 could be. 1st stage in sulfamic acid is 3HN-SO3. and the white smoke when using sulfur candles to detect ammonia leaks?

Shjacks45 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with sodium and lithium used as a reducing agent in ammonia. I assume you are referring to the Birch reduction. But working with liquid ammonia requires more skills and equipment than is readily available. Are you certain that's the reason why it is on the DEA watch list? --Rifleman 82 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How does the salinity of the solution affect the degree to which ammonia protonates and forms ammonium?

I'm interested from the point of view of the Solvay process. Does the salinity of the brine solution stop the ammonia from reacting with the water to form ammonium? --124.187.171.132 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)