From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
High traffic

On 21 March 2008, Fullerene was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)


Bucky balls were popular in the US a few decades back, and they continue to be sold as toys. See [[1]] for example. This should perhaps be a separate page. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not find what i was looking for[edit]

I came here looking for the toy Buckyballs... I cant seem to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrospark (talkcontribs) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Article protection[edit]

This article needs to be protected urgently. Google features bucky balls on the front page. This is the first search result, so spammers cause vandalism. Protection needed at least for one day.-- (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering, is google really refering to fullerene with it's logo ? or is it an homage to the inventor of the architectural design ? this article says google refered to the molecule and the quote for that is a romanian newspaper article that talks about the wikipedia page, I think someone from that romanian newspaper edited the article to say google is refering to the fullerene molecule maybe google is not telling on purpose to find out how people are searching for the logos meaning ? -shodan (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 September 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} please replace any "discovered" with "synthesized" or "invented"

the term "discovered" applies only to naturally occurring items. (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fullerenes occur naturally, and had been produced in space and on earth (in arc discharges, for example) for many decades. Thus Kroto et al. did not not really synthesize them - they, crudely speaking, separated them from a common discharge soot. Process optimization is essential only for the C60 yield. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

4 bondings of C[edit]

Hi. Could anyone explain what happens with the 4th Coal bounding? I can see that the coal uses only 3 in the Fullerens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Carbon forms double bonds in many organic compounds, including fullerene. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an explanation of this in the article as well... I find the levels of complexity of the article mixed. A simple introduction to the chemistry + a sketch of the actual bonds (double/single/aromacity) would be appropriate, I think. I still don't get where the double bonds are, if there are supposed to be three pr six atoms (eg. fullerene sheets of six-membered rings)! (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 September 2010[edit]


Add the word 'The' or 'An' in front of the word "Icosahedral" in the sentence:

Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure.

This will make the sentence above gramatically correct.

Corrected versions: The Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure. An Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure. (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Added the to the start of the sentence. --Stickee (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Safety and Toxicity[edit]

This part of the article doesn't say much on safety and toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Regarding this revert of mine, there are two issues: (i) combining images of species which have their own, well-developed articles, in the lead of fullerene does clutter it and leaves little space for text. (ii) The common understanding of carbon nanotubes is a rolled graphene sheet, not a fullerene blown into a tube. The relation between C60 and nanotube is only (well, I actually don't know this relation, even after studying them for long), maybe, in the extended pure carbon network. Going ad absurdum, we could add a dozen of chemicals with very similar structures to their leads, which does not seem constructive. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on the second concern first: I'm pretty sure that nanotubes are considered to be fullerenes too. Both this article and Carbon nanotube say that they are, however I noticed that these statements are unsourced. I don't have a nanotech reference book on me right now; I can probably look it up in the next few days. If nanotubes are not in fact considered fullerenes, then both of these articles will need to be revised.
As far as layout, I thought that showing a single example of each of the major classes of fullerene at the top would greatly clarify the subject to a reader unfamiliar with the field. Using a vertical rather than horizontal layout should reduce clutter/distortion of the lead text. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 03:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that fullerenes are defined such that they include tubular structures, and this is a key point which needs proper, reliable references (not WP itself). In most labs, fullerenes are usually meant as globular structures, but some Britannica definition can beat this. Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong, my apologies, please go ahead. Vertical design will push other pictures down too much, thus perhaps horizontal is better, but the right nanotube image was not using its space - I would crop and brighten it or find another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I was thinking the same thing about the nanotube picture, there's probably a better one floating around Commons somewhere. I'll play around with the layout to get something that's more visually appealing. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"fullerene" vs. "nanotube"?[edit]

"Nanobuds have been obtained by adding fullerenes to carbon nanotubes." As far as i can tell from the rest of the article, carbon nanotubes are fullerenes, so that statement makes no sense. Unfortunately, the main article on nanobuds has similar verbiage. Can someone more knowledgeable fix this, or at least leave some comments here? thaks Doceddi (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The terminology is misleading (to me) as most scientists do not mix nanotubes and fullerenes (meaning fullerenes=buckminsterfullerenes). Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


The article links the word "superaromacity" to the "aromacity" article... but in the "aromacity" article, superaromacity isen't mentioned! (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Add solbility of C70, but the value between the two papers were different, thus only C70's added, C60's was not updated. (1) R. S. Ruoff; D. S. Tse; R. Malhotra et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN A VARIETY OF SOLVENTS", Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1993, 97, 3379. (2) N. Sivaraman; R. Dhamodaran; I. Kaliappan et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN ORGANIC-SOLVENTS", Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1992, 57, 6077. Topliuchao (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Excuse my ignorance, what's the source of this sentence "Some fullerene structures are not soluble because they have a small band gap between the ground and excited states." and there is no reference about this, and I have never heard anything about it. Could someone mention references for this one? Thank you. Topliuchao (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: From the Solubility table: methanol (0.000 04 mg/mL, * ), water (1.3×10−11 mg/mL, * ), pentane (0.004 mg/mL, 0.002 mg/mL)… The water solubility is given as 1.3E-11, which is many [orders of] magnitudes less than 0.004 (4E-3), so it would belong at the very end of the table, rather than the middle. Is the sort wrong or is the value wrong? Wikidity (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
See renewed discussion on this subject, at Talk section date this date. Le Prof (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of reference[edit]

the claim "In 2012 it was revealed that oral administration prolonged the lifespan of rats by nearly 100% without showing toxic effects" does not point to any study/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is the relevant article : , of which subsection 3.3 states: "The estimated median lifespan (EML) for the C60-treated rats was 42 months while the EMLs for control rats and olive oil-treated rats were 22 and 26 months, respectively. These are increases of 18 and 90% for the olive-oil and C60-treated rats, respectively, as compared to controls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Properties of PURE fullerenes[edit]

What are properties of that allotropes? What is they appearance? Does pure fullerenes have some metallic luster? What about band gap? I saw a book in which there was written that C60 (or C70) has electrical conductivity of 1014 ohm/m (not 1014 ohm/m, which I saw on some pages in Internet) and it has relatively narrow band gap (1,9 eV (in some pages in the Internet there is about 2,3 eV for C60)). Can more nonmetallic elements (especially sulfur) form "fullerenes" or nanotubes or the element or compound must be at least a near-metalloid to form such complex, polyatomic structures? What are boiling, melting and sublimation points of fullerenes (at standard pressure)? Fullerenes look less metallic than diamond, which is NOT so clearly nonmetallic (crystalline structure like Si and Ge, transparency and low electrical conductivity are not only properties of a typical nonmetal, diamond has many metalloidal properties (very high melting, boiling point, extreme hardness and thermal conductivity, very high density), in fact diamond has mixed properties of a metalloid and a nonmetal, both very strongly marked!, it is even "bad metalloid", not a "just nonmetal"). (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

flatness of graphenes[edit]

Of nanotubes:

… and relative chemical inactivity (as it is cylindrical and "planar" — that is, it has no "exposed" atoms that can be easily displaced).

As a nanotube has no hidden atoms, all are exposed in the ordinary sense of the word; how about replacing "exposed" with "outermost"? —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the long experience of pharma[edit]

…that solubility determination is extraordinarily method dependent, and to an extent laboratory dependent, @Wikidity:, @Topliuchao:, making the appearance of a table, primary source-derived, and lacking all direct indication of sources for each line, and so divorced from method, and additionally bearing ranges of values from 10E-11 to about 10 mg per mL, and variability in stated precisions including thousands of a mg… all very suspicious, and if you will, in my experience, silly. First, if the table is to stay, it must have citations, value by value. Second, methods need to be summarized, one sentence each source. Third, a reasonable rounding of the data should be imposed, likely article by article (based on their stated discussion of methods and precision): did each citation measure each compound once—in which case they are near useless—or in replicates, and if indeed replicates, what is the stated error for the repeat measures? Finally, as the section tag states, summarizing data is the better approach from primary sources, until the experts review the data. Solubilities are notoriously finicky (pharma experience), and measures from one lab are bound to be inaccurate past the first decimal place or so; if not expressing all in scientific notation, to the same precision for each report—then summarize all tabulated data in 4-5 phrases/sentences, in general terms:

  • "insoluble in water and polar ptotic solvents (<x.x mg/mL, e.g. MeOH, x.x mg/mL), essentially insoluble in straight chain hydrocarbons (<x.x mg/mL, e.g. n-C7H16, x.x mg/mL), … and most soluble in polar aromatics (>x.x mg/mL, e.g. 1,4-dichlorobenzene, x.x mg/mL)"

and cite the sources for full information. (The principles and patterns from the papers are most important; people are here to learn, not to use Wikipedia data to guide their dissolution of fullerenes at home.)

Finally, as previous discussions have alluded, the table begs statement of the organizing principle for ordering and adding new solvent data. One could provide an index of solvent polarity, ordering listed solvents according to that index. That would be the professional way to do this, in my opinion (if I cannot persuade you to can the whole thing). Le Prof (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fullerene. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)