Talk:Carbamic acid
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Aminoacid?
[edit]Re "simplest amino acid": Technically correct, amino-formic acid vs glycine = aminoacetic acid, but the biological amino acids are all alpha-amino acids, which carbamic acid is not (there being no alpha carbon in formic acid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaberry (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Amino acids must have an amine functional group and a carboxylic acid functional group. Carbamic acid has neither. It is a carbamic acid - a different functional group, realted to carbamates. For example, the NH2 group in carbamic acid is not basic as it is in amines, like amino acids. Saying carbamic acid is an amino acid is like saying that a carboxylic acid is a keto alcohol. It is not.122.109.122.10 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- It definitely has a carboxylic acid functional group, and as such it forms carbamate salts and esters. The fact that its amine structural group does not have the same properties it has in regular amines does not prohibits calling it an "amine group". That is useful when describing and memorizing its structure. The functional anomaly is noted in the article.
Ocurrence in deep space
[edit]@Smokefoot: This paragraph was removed from the article, with the justification "so what":
- Carbamic acid has been conjectured to be present in very cold environments in outer space, where ammonia and carbon dioxide may be present. Its spontaneous formation at 80 K may result in those two gases being trapped into solid particles and surfaces up to 230-250 K, well above their respective sublimation points.[1]
- ^ J. B. Bossa, P. Theulé, F. Duvernay, F. Borget and T. Chiavassa (2008): "Carbamic acid and carbamate formation in NH3:CO2 ices – UV irradiation versus thermal processes". Astronomy and Astrophysics, volume 492, issue 3, pages 719-724. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810536
Most of our knowledge about the chemistry of space objects like dust clouds is, strictly speaking, pure conjecture; that per se does not make it less scientific, and worth of mention in wikipedia. The conjecture above seems quite plausible, since the article describes the spontaneous formation of carbamic acid and ammonium carbamate from mixed CO2-NH3 ice. It would have important implications about the possible composition of dust grains and planetary "ice" at the temperatures and substrate conditions where solid carbamic acid is stable but solid CO2 and solid NH3 are not. Can I put that paragraph back? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, politely. But thank you for the opportunity to discuss the matter.
- 1) Most of our knowledge about astrochemistry is not conjecture, astrochemistry's foundation rests of experimental rotational spectra that allowed the identification of all sorts of simple molecules. The fact that formaldehyde occurs in the interstellar medium seems notable to me. What I am questioning is citing primary work where there is no observation. There are many computational people dreaming up molecules that should exist or could exist or might exist and then doing what theorists do, publish their results. The notability of that style of speculative work is questioned by me. If you think that Wikipedia should regularly cite computational results speculating on what should be or could be, you might reconsider because there is a ton of that kind of stuff residing in journals.
- 2) My second objection, which is less reliant on opinion: why that paper? 13 publications (ignoring patents) appeared on registry number 463-77-4 in 2008. Some of these publications are far more cited that this computational work. Should we cite all 13? Or to be fair, we should cite most of the 260 publications that have appears since 2008? Why not "Kinetics of the Reversible Reaction of CO2(aq) with Ammonia in Aqueous Solution", or wait, "Chemical solvent in chemical solvent: A class of hybrid materials for effective capture of CO2" seems interesting (and well cited), etc. etc.
- So my objection is based on the combination of the two arguments. Thank you for listening.
--Smokefoot (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Carbamyl
[edit]Carbamyl redirects to this topic, but there is no information whatsoever about carbamyl here. Elsewhere on the internet it is defines as the H2NCO− radical. This could be H2N-C(=O)-R. What makes the difference between a tertiary amide and a carbamoyl? Who can explain this?
Regards, Simon de Danser (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Skeletal Formula
[edit]why are we using skeletal formulas when carbamic acid is inorganic and skeletal formulas are for organic chemicals 108.255.197.210 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)