From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Emerging Developments[edit]

FYI to anyone editing this page- Wired released an article today which suggests that buckministerfullerene is no longer the largest particle to exhibit wave-particle duality. I'd want a better source though before I go changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


I think the picture of buckmisterfullerene in benzene should be removed because it's completely useless. It looks no different than colored water in a beaker, and adds no value to this page


How is buckminsterfullerene manufactured/created? ~~


Is it Buckminster-fullerene or Buckminsterfullerene? (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is written as one unhyphenated word, buckminsterfullerene. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you share your source/authority for this format & capitalization?
--Wikidity (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Visual Description[edit]

"... carbon atom at each vertex" ; Although this style of illustration is a useful convention of long standing, & uncontroversial, I am fairly confident that the 'bond' or 'interaction field' between the atoms is by most understanding, larger, and reaches out further from the vacuum centroid of the molecule, than the atoms at the vertices of their bonds. I believe that if visualized by VHR FM, most Buckminsterfullerene (like most Fullerenes/Bucky-balls and tubes) would look like grossly over-stuffed upholstered structures, with the atoms(upholstery buttons) deeply embedded in the 'poofy' projecting bond structure fields.
--Wikidity (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Isolated Pentagon Rule[edit]

Is the argument on Commons:File talk:Buckminsterfullerene-2D-skeletal.png really valid? --Leyo 13:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I left a reply there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No javascript[edit]

The table on this page is broken on firefox with noscript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a problem with the Chembox template and technically not specific to the Buckminsterfullerene page, although the fact the chemical formula of Buckminmsterfullerene is so complex does form part of the reason the problem occurs on this page. Even with Javascript enabled, if the SMILES or InChI entry [show] links are clicked on any page where the chemical formula is sufficiently complex, the same problem rears its head: The table/template becomes unmanageably wide. (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


The structure including C-C distance, pyramidalization, C-C-C angles, and packing, pretty basic stuff, is missing. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Effect on living organisms[edit]

I don't know how much information is available, but if there is any, I think it would be a useful addition. Surely there must be at least some basic information on acute toxicity; someone must have studied that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's this forum discussion on C60's effects on humans: and this article seems interesting: However, I haven't had the patience to do in-depth reading to what the state of affairs is here, and the only seemingly credible paper on the subject is this:

Hopefully, this paper trail will inspire somebody to do better digging.

TheJackal (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hydrated fullerene scam[edit]

@Materialscientist: The hydrated fullerene section was recently removed by an IP editor as a scam and then restored. There is certainly an alleged scam going on, see this gsearch. There are no homeopathic claims being made in our article, but I think it is a little uncomfortable that all the references (except one dead link) are authored by the alleged scammer. I really don't know much about this subject, but it needs looking at by someone who does. An independent reference verifying that the substance actually exists would be a good start. SpinningSpark 10:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like hype or at least WP:UNDUE: the same authors on several papers in mainly narrow journals. I would remove it. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Homeopathy is not an issue here (many valid chemicals have been abused in this sense). The question is whether there is an independent confirmation of the hydrated complex, not by Andrievsky or his collaborators. Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There are a cpouple of indipendent papers (10.1016/j.carbon.2003.12.053 and 10.1021/es048099n) As well as a section in a review paper (10.1021/cr3005026). It also has a CAS no of 209343-51-1 (for C60 . x H2O). Project Osprey (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Surface processes in growth of C60 Fullerene Bommel et al Fig1.jpg

A recent open-access paper in Nature Communications discusses the growth of Buckminsterfullerene and gives some related measurements. I've uploaded one of the figures to Commons in case it is useful for this or a related article, but I'll leave that decision to the article's contributors.

  • Bommel, S.; Kleppmann, N.; Weber, C.; Spranger, H.; Schäfer, P.; Novak, J.; Roth, S.V.; Schreiber, F.; Klapp, S.H.L.; Kowarik, S. (5 November 2014). "Unravelling the multilayer growth of the fullerene C60 in real time". Nature Communications. 5: 5388. doi:10.1038/ncomms6388. 

MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Buckyballs in Carbon Capture[edit]

Science Daily posted an article out of Rice University on C-20's ability to aid in carbon capture. I'm not sure how relevant that is or if the source is good enough because chemistry is really not my field. It sounds promising, though, so can someone more knowledgable check it out and add it if it deserves adding? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious Citation[edit]

At the bottom of the history section, under 'Emerging Developments', I find citations 26 and 27 in particular highly dubious. While claiming a combination of buckminsterfullerene and olive oil increased rat lifespans, it also links to a site selling $45 bottles of the self-same oil. This is tantamount to advertising and doesn't really belong on wikipedia, even if it is true. Needless to say, I doubt the veracity of the citation in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8202:505F:55D0:FD8C:6D3B:EEC3 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of criticism of Moussa's paper and methods on the internet (see [1] for instance), some going as far as accussing him of a scam. Against that, there are papers, perhaps with less spectacular claims, [2][3], from researchers apparently not connected to Moussa or his associates. In my opinion, we shouldn't leave it in without at least mentioning some of the criticism. SpinningSpark 18:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)