Talk:Fluoroboric acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Stub-class, Low-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Pure"[edit]

Is this available as a pure form? Article says no, then talks about pure HBF4 using acetic anhydride. "Neat" HBF4 is also mentioned further down. What does "anhydrous solution" mean? A solution in acetic anhydride? Or does it refer to the pure compound? The Oxford MSDS appears to talk of the pure form, instead of a solution. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The only "pure form" is the etherate, a 1:1 molar mixture of HBF4 and diethyl ether. Other than that all I know are the aqueous solutions. As far as I can recall, this is not available as a pure compound, it would be horribly unstable. 24 June 2016

pKa[edit]

The pKa of this acid has been determined many times and has many different values. I suggest that it be removed, because the -0.4 figure is both unreliable, practically unverifiable, and loaded with caveats. I can dig up references later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.113.33 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The new pKa appears to have been added by the research group that specializes in pKa measurements. Wikipedia usually doesnt like primary references but the value is fundamental it seems. If readers want to use a value from Wikipedia and are provided with the journal citation, they are forewarned. Also the value looks reasonable. Does anyone really care if they are off by 2-3 pKa units? --Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear which reference contains this spurious -0.4 figure. If it's to be included and used in the ChemBox, this should be made more obvious. "ChemBox references" leads to a page indicating general sources for all chemboxes, which is not appropriate. Also, the -0.4 pKa figure seems to have been added by Smokefoot back in 2007, and changed from a previous figure of -4.9, a number equally spurious and once again without an obvious reference. The change makes reference to EROS, which in turn references a Russian paper from 1978, whose title suggests that these pKa data are from organic media, making the number shown here less useful than might be thought. FInally, it is laughable that one would defend a suspicious piece of data with "does anyone really care?" Of course people care, otherwise why write it in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.113.33 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)