Talk:Chromium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Elements

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers 14:39 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC) and Mkweise. Elementbox converted 14:39, 2 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:16, 30 June 2005). 30 June 2005

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Chromium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Chromium Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Chromium, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Dietary Sources of Chromium

There needs to be a discussion about the dietary uses of chromium and food sources.

Indeed. Some mention might also be made of Erin Brockovich.

Here's a fairly good digest of mineral nutrition. I've reproduced the Cr section below:

It is difficult to estimate the chromium requirement, but a range of 50 micrograms to 200 micrograms per day is tentatively recommended.

Trivalent chromium is required for maintaining normal glucose metabolism. Evidence shows that chromium improves glucose tolerance [Riales, R., & Albrink, M. J., American J. Clin. Nutr., Vol. 34, pg 2670] . Diabetes and coronary heart disease are associated with low chromium concentrations in human tissue.

The chemical forms of chromium in foods are not known with certainty, but the bioavailability of chromium compounds has been found to be high in brewer's yeast, shell fish, whole wheat bread and mushrooms.

An increased incidence of bronchial cancer has been associated with exposure to dusts containing chromate. But the carcinogenicity of certain chromates bears no relevance to the nutritional role of non toxic trivalent chromium.

Other sources I've found list:

• organ meats
• brown rice
• wheat
• eggs
• orange juice
• potatoes
• Cheese
• Corn oil

I imagine one could also scrape the sides of stainless steel cookware more often.--Joel 06:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dakota~N~Kat Forever Happy Valentines Day to all!!!

06:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supplementation

A natural form of chromium extracted from yeast, Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) chromium, was found to exert beneficial insulin-mimetic and insulin-potentiating effects in vitro and in a mouse model The GTF form was seen to produce an insulin-like effect by acting on cellular signals downstream of the insulin receptor. These beneficial results suggest Glucose Tolerance Factor as a potential source for a novel oral medication for diabetes.

Although it is controversial whether supplements should be taken by healthy adults eating a normal diet, chromium is needed as a component of the defined liquid diet that is given to patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN), since deficiency can occur after many months of this highly restricted diet. As a result chromium is added to normal TPN solutions, although the trace amounts from even in "chromium free" preparations may be enough to prevent deficiency in some individuals. Recent studies have challenged the methodology of earlier studies, concluding that chromium should not be regarded as an essential element.

Comparative studies of chromium(III) picolinate and niacin-bound chromium(III), two popular dietary supplements, reveal that chromium(III) picolinate produces significantly more oxidative stress and DNA damage. Studies have implicated the toxicity of chromium picolinate in renal impairment, skin blisters and pustules, anemia, hemolysis, tissue edema, liver dysfunction; neuronal cell injury, impaired cognitive, perceptual and motor activity; enhanced production of hydroxyl radicals, chromosomal aberration, depletion of antioxidant enzymes, and DNA damage. Recently, chromium picolinate has been shown to be mutagenic and picolinic acid moiety appears to be responsible as studies show that picolinic acid alone is clastogenic. Niacin-bound chromium(III) has been demonstrated to be more bioavailable and efficacious and no toxicity has been reported.

Recent studies "have concluded that chromium supplements have no demonstrated effects on healthy individuals" and chromium picolinate in particular is described as a "poor choice" as a supplement. A meta-analysis in 2002 found no effect on blood glucose or insulin in healthy people, and the data were inconclusive for diabetics. Subsequent trials gave mixed results, with one finding no effect in people with impaired glucose tolerance, but another seeing a small improvement in glucose resistance. A 2007 review again concluded that chromium supplements had no beneficial effect on healthy people, but that there might be an improvement in glucose metabolism in diabetics, although the authors stated that the evidence for this effect remains weak.

References

FAC - ready or not?

At some point a decision has to be made - is the article ready to be submitted? The fact that it is already a Good Article is not necessarily a good thing, as that classification was achieved in 2009, and there have been more than 1,000 edits since then, suggesting that meeting the GA criteria at the time left lots of room for improvement. The Biological role section is missing subsections seen in other nutritionally essential minerals, such as Biological chemistry or Plant physiology. A problem is that most of the "_____ in biology" (insert mineral name) articles are C-class, so there are no good models for completeness. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

On length - Zinc (FA) is 136,000 bytes and 229 references. Chromium is currently 86,600 and 120 refs. Some of the obscure elements that are FA are 60-65K and 85-90 refs. Let's not be afraid to make the article longer as long as the content is relevant. David notMD (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: I personally believe that the correct course of action for the future of the Chromium article is to initiate a peer review before all else before starting up the FAC. That way, we can judge where we are in the process towards Featured Article, and exactly what we need to fix before we send in our final draft. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just don't involve too many people in the process or there will not be a non-involved reviewer to conduce the FA review! David notMD (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Back in the old times when niobium was a FAC everything was easy. But even at that time it was a though ride to get it to be a FA. There is a lot what needs to be checked before to submit it. The images need a look if they are OK. All references have to go through a check. The length of certain parts of the chromium article do not match its importance. The most needed thing is a good copy editing native speaker bringing the language to FA level. But that is only the obvious things. A Peer review would be a first step. FAC reviewers will not bother to do a peer review so we would not lose any.What would be good is to look at the last few FAC of the chemical elements project to see what the standard is we are working to.--Stone (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with modelling after other elements which are also diet-essential, is that only zinc is FA. The others are GA (K, Na, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, I, Cr, Se) or C-class (P and Mg). For some of these there is a Wikilink to a ____ in biology article, but those are mostly C-class, with a couple of B-class (Mg and Fe). David notMD (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My take: I saw a lot of "Let's go for this one", but less actual core editing (facts, good sentences, sources) in Chromium history. From a distance, I'd name UtopianPoyzin (and maybe David notMD). That's a wrong balance. For example, let's take a look at recent months FA Lead history, and the number&quality of edits R8R made. Not just by number, but the actual edits in the actual article. I'd say for now: the article needs more qality focused edits. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If you look to earlier this year, I did 30 edits before UtopianPoyzin proposed this for FA, dating back to 2016, so I've been with the article a long time. And willing to stay with. The only area I am competent to edit content is Biological role. I have also brought five articles to GA and am working on two more Folate and Vitamin E, and so have experience in upgrading articles. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, looks like I got called out here. You are correct. At first, when I started Wikipedia a few weeks ago, you are correct. I was incredibly hyped up to get something big accomplished here, and my original goal was to just pick an article and help. I realized that I had plenty of time on my hands, and I was anxious to start something. When nobody opposed, I realized that "Chromium" was fairly close and would be a good target, so I got to work. I have improved drastically in my understanding of the Featured Article criteria, and feel like I am much more capable to help here than I originally was. I still am lacking in my ability to cite, and had been using the default web-citation template whenever needed. I am still unsure on how to correctly format consistent citations to the rest of the article, as I am still imperfect and inexperienced here. Still, I have been doing my best to help out however I can. Most of my recent edits have been geared towards guiding the article to FAC. DePiep, you are correct in naming me as having an original goal of writing this article "just to do it", for I did explicitly state as such in the edit summary back in late september/early october (somewhere around there). I was, at first, helping with the sole intention of that; in this case, all I could do then was clarify and illustrate wording. I would like to assure everyone that I have written similar article-style essays in the past, so I am not 100% inexperienced. I'll just need time to get acquainted with the atmosphere and standards here. Usually when writing, I'm all alone with my own interpretation. Here, it's writing as a team to satisfy both the collaborating authors, as well as neutral (no more "my interpretation") and comprehensible to the population, for anybody can and will read this. I am now straying away from updating the wording like I was before, to adding citations, wikilinks, and boosting the article in overall quality with generally small tweaks. It's too late in the process to add a substantial amount of information here without it warranting an article of itself (in my opinion).

TL;DR, sorry if my edits used to be incompetent, I'm now straying away from my old mindset of trying to boost the article "just to do it", to putting time and energy into upping the quality, and plan on sticking around if (or when) we get this article to FAC. I am improving this article for practice and experience with editing Wikipedia, and will most definitely be pursuing further ambitions in upgrading articles. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I will still be making base-text edits up until I complete what I included on the FAC to-do list. Those are still important areas of focus. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia advises be BOLD, and aiming for FA of a GA article was definitely BOLD. Even if this article does not reach a point where it is a valid FA nominee, it is being improved because of the increased attention. David notMD (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As of yet, this article appears to be quite far away from the FA status. On first glance, it seems I'd want to improve every section. Of course, this can change. I can give you a long, detailed review to specify what needs to be done (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Thorium/archive1 for an example of a review of mine; I recall Double sharp enjoyed such extensiveness of the review). If you want the review, I'll start shortly.--R8R (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally would love it if you could review the article. I, too, am aware of the amount of work that still needs to be done, but if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to hear your review about the current quality of the article as well as the edits made by David notMD, Stone and I. I will put the to-do list on hold, so that you can grade the article as is. If you are willing to provide a review (thank you if you do), I'll start up a peer review. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to provide a review; I'll be waiting for a peer review to begin then.--R8R (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

plagiarism

• Discovery, properties and applications of chromium and its compounds

To what extent is this legal? Is it OK to re-use images without mentioning it? --Stone (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If I am correct, I believe the article you link actually copied what was written here, rather than Wikipedia copying that article. When I went into the article history back to February of 2015, a month before it was written and the same month before the author first went online, I found that the article you linked is scarily similar to the Chromium Wikipedia article back in 2015. Now, with that being said, I do not know the policy that is used when some outside sources rips content straight from Wikpedia, and I'm assuming that there is some sort of punishment that the author somehow avoided. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a common occurrence. Website (and print) content that uses Wikipedia content verbatim is supposed to credit Wikipedia, but there is no copyright issue to pursue. Same for use of images taken from Wikipedia Commons. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

To read a similar article you pay 42 Euro. There is a copy right issue. To copy from wikipedia and let people pay for it has to be prevented.--Stone (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I notified the editor of the series and their editorial board asking them "please compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-015-0007-z" --Smokefoot (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I emailed the author but he did nor answer yet.--Stone (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the main part of an email I got this AM from the editor Scholz: "...was not done on purpose. Indeed, ... this "has arisen from a misunderstanding of the Creative Commons Public License ("CCPL”)." --Smokefoot (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Smokefoot do I understand this is resolved (at least for Wikipedia)? Please describe the result, closing this. -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep Well the journal editor basically told me by email that they plagiarized but that they wont do it again. So its over I guess. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

YOK, thanks. No wiki error here. I could read something like that in this, but now it's clear. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The springer page still sttes that the content is "© Springer International Publishing 2015", No wikipedia as source is given. So you got an emails stating sorry. But we will go on violating CCPL licence. --Stone (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pause on FAC

My thinking this was a "bridge too far," given shortfalls various editors pointed out. I recommend the FAC be paused, and editors who see means to improve this Good Article, do so. I, for one, intend to add content on effects of chromium on plants, and also potential to use plants to remediate water or soil contamination. But if anyone else wants to tackle that, below are refs I found. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

SINHA2018Sinha V, Pakshirajan K, Chaturvedi R (2018). "Chromium tolerance, bioaccumulation and localization in plants: An overview". J. Environ. Manage. 206: 715–730. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.033. PMID 29156430.

FERNANDES2018Fernández PM, Viñarta SC, Bernal AR, Cruz EL, Figueroa LI (2018). "Bioremediation strategies for chromium removal: Current research, scale-up approach and future perspectives". Chemosphere. 208: 139–148. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.166. PMID 29864705.

GOMES2017Gomes MA, Hauser-Davis RA, Suzuki MS, Vitória AP (2017). "Plant chromium uptake and transport, physiological effects and recent advances in molecular investigations". Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 140: 55–64. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.01.042. PMID 28231506.

MALAVIYA2016Malaviya P, Singh A (2016). "Bioremediation of chromium solutions and chromium containing wastewaters". Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 42 (4): 607–633. doi:10.3109/1040841X.2014.974501. PMID 25358056.

GARG2012Garg SK, Tripathi M, Srinath T (2012). "Strategies for chromium bioremediation of tannery effluent". Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 217: 75–140. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2329-4_2. PMID 22350558.

SHANKER2009Shanker AK, Djanaguiraman M, Venkateswarlu B (2009). "Chromium interactions in plants: current status and future strategies". Metallomics. 1 (5): 375–383. doi:10.1039/b904571f. PMID 21305140.

SHANKER2005Shanker AK, Cervantes C, Loza-Tavera H, Avudainayagam S (2005). "Chromium toxicity in plants". Environ Int. 31 (5): 739–753. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2005.02.003. PMID 15878200.

CERVANTES2001Cervantes C, Campos-García J, Devars S, Gutiérrez-Corona F, Loza-Tavera H, Torres-Guzmán JC, Moreno-Sánchez R (2001). "Interactions of chromium with microorganisms and plants". FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 25 (3): 335–347. PMID 11348688.

Here is my skeptical view: Among elements relevant to life, chromium is the least important. It is even debatable if it is required for life. Of course as we know the intensity of a discussion anticorrelates with an effect.

Yes, mineral supplement marketers love seeing lots of content on Wikipedia because the magnitude content helps makes their case that people should be consuming their supplements.

Overall, in my view, more than anything more than a few (3?) references to the role of Cr in life processes is sufficient. The article currently has 30 of 135 references for bio-Cr. The 8 references that David recommends would pile would mean that bio-Cr is represented by 38/143 references. Thus bio-Cr (= plant/animal nutrition/supplements, toxicity, enzymology) is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of this element. That, my friends, is WP:UNDUE.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

First, these eight refs are about chromium being toxic, so not about nutrition. Second, there is a model for shrinking biological content in a mineral article. Sodium, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, Copper and Selenium have ____ in biology articles, leaving behind a truncated biological role content in the mineral article. This could be done for Chromium. And also for Zinc and Manganese. Not do much undue as wrong place. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's define "bio-Cr" = plant/animal nutrition/supplements, toxicity, enzymology. Then let's think about which undergraduate or graduate course in chem, biochem, or physiology discusses it (answer: none). There is one theme that merits significant attention, Cr(VI).

We already have a grand article on chromium picolinate, where again the evidence for efficacy is thin. And now we are going to create yet another article?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at View history on CrP you will see that I cut about 25%. As long as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, India and Japan rule that it is an essential nutrient, it warrants coverage. Much of what is in the article is there to explain how inconclusive the evidence is for claimed health benefits. Given popularity of chromium dietary supplements, that is a service to readers. David notMD (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Editors should aspire to write long sections for themes where the evidence is "inconclusive"? Seems like the reverse of what this project is about: a focus on the big verifiable themes. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Okay, I can agree that a pause for FAC could be warranted. I have had a bunch of other priority arise in these past couple months, and raising Chromium up to Featured Article is not one of the highest projects of consideration for me recently, as bad as that sounds. I wish I was able to help out more than I could, but I was in over-my-head when it comes to this article. As far as working on the effects of chromium on plants, I 100% agree with you when it pertains to that as long as Chromium is essential, it deserves to be covered. I will also agree that chromium toxicity is a much larger topic than chromium in biology, but both of these need to be covered. What you provided is completely fine regardless of what Smokefoot considers to be undue, but to each their own. In the mean time, I'll try my best to upgrade the general chemistry related sections as best as I can. This has turned more from being a main project and a main source of my time to a side project and a side source of my time, if you understand what I'm getting at.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Same. I've nominated Red yeast rice for GA and have been working on two vitamin articles to be ready for a GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Chronium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chronium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2