|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 How is it ?
- 3 Wrong link to the Hazardous Chemical Database
- 4 structure
- 5 Physical properties
- 6 Name
- 7 Bio-part of this article should be relocated?
- 8 Chembox
- 9 Bonding
- 10 Minoxidil works through ATP-sensitive potassium channels
- 11 N-O bond length
- 12 NO-Xplode Redirect
- 13 Older industrial process
- 14 Nutraceutical marketing
- 15 Importance
- 16 Dimer formation
- 17 "sustained levels of increase NO production"
- 18 Possibly Confusing Terminology?
- 19 Nitrogen Monoxide
- 20 Anions and Cations
- 21 I failed at wiki formatting.
No2 + O2 reaction, is it "rapid" or "a very slow process"?? In the wikipedia article "nitrogen dioxide" it is stated that "Nitric oxide can be oxidized in air to form nitrogen dioxide. At normal atmospheric concentrations, this is a very slow process." while in the article "nitric oxide" it is stated that "nitric oxide is rapidly oxidised in air to nitrogen dioxide." WHICH IS TRUE?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysztof Bohdan (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
How is it ?
The opening paragraph talks about NO being toxic but, down in the biological effects section, it is described as a muscle relaxant, vaso-dialator, etc.
I'm not clear what the "toxic" part is. Is NO more or less toxic than, say, Valium? I don't think "toxic" is used appropriately, here; should probably be replaced with "undesirable."
- I disagree, toxic is the correct term here. As stated in the article, the effects of NO can be toxic if the production is at high levels &/or sustained. In the laboratory, this can be studied and indeed the chemical reactions of NO are different at different concentrations (non-specific damaging event occurring at high concentration such as might occur during an inflammatory or ischaemic event eg stroke). I will try to find a reference for this.JustAnotherKinase (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The link in the article pointed to nitrogen selenide. R6144 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The structure,DUde thats not right as in whether it's linear, and etc, dipolee moment, polarity, or whatnot... should be added
I thought the suffixes -ous and -ic weren't used anymore. Instead of nitrogen monoxide redirecting here, shouldn't this article redirect there? I have the same complaint with nitrous oxide. Twilight Realm 20:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It's me again. Actually, I just checked the talk page for nitrous oxide, and they said the common name should be used. So, as long as nitric oxide is the common name, I guess that's ok. But first I'd like some confirmation that this is the common name. Twilight Realm 20:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Environmental: While the article states that NO and NO2 contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, this misses the important contribution of NO to ground level ozone production.
Bio-part of this article should be relocated?
A lot of nice bio-NO content in the present article, but it may be redundant with or more suitable for Endothelium-derived relaxing factor and signal transduction. IMHO.--Smokefoot 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting the old chembox here while I graft its info onto the new chembox.
Ben 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
|Formula weight||30.0 amu|
|Melting point||109 K (-164 °C)|
|Boiling point||121 K (-152 °C)|
|Density||1.3 ×103 kg/m3 (liquid)|
|Solubility||0.0056 g in 100g water|
|S0gas, 1 bar||211 J/mol·K|
|Ingestion||Used for medicinal purposes but has side effects and dangerous in overdose|
|Inhalation||Dangerous, may be fatal.|
|Eyes||May cause irritation|
|More info||Hazardous Chemical Database|
How does the oxygen bond to the nitrogen? I´ve learned the oxygen can only have two covalent bonds, and the nitrogen, three. If two electrons from each are in the bond, the nitrogen doesn´t have its octet complete. What happens, then? A.Z. 14:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why it's considered a free radical. It has one electron which is usually shared along with another molecule's electron to form it's third bond, but instead there is no third bond and it is deemed a free radical. It doesn't like to be this way, that is why it is so reactive. You can see this in the structure you included with the single electron on top. 188.8.131.52 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Andrea
Minoxidil works through ATP-sensitive potassium channels
Minoxidil apparently works directly on ATP-sensitive potassium channels without stimulating cGMP or PKG. The Potassium hypothesis for hair growth has been supported by numerous agents that influence potassium flux altering hair growth. It appears to be direct on the dermal papillae and potassium channels, and not increased blood flow or PKG phosporylation cell signalling events. As far as NO and the hair follicle it is inducible by androgens and is present in follicle melanocytes (role in greying maybe) but I don't think it is exactly clear what role it plays (maybe associated with hair loss). I don't think the statements are accurate and upto date or appropriate for the topic of NO. Minoxidil maybe contains the molecular structure of NO but there is no proof that is how it effects hair growth. GetAgrippa 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This sort of reminds me of some antidepressants as they were designed to modulate neutransmitter reuptake, etc. , yet the real function may have to do with neurogenesis in the hippocampus. Anyways, although minoxidil contains the NO structure the evidence doesn't support the effects on hair growth are NO mediated. GetAgrippa 03:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
N-O bond length
Bond length is given as 115 ppm. Anyone knows the source of this info? Preferably a scientfic paper. Thanks. -RTyg 184.108.40.206 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
NO-Xplode is a nutritional supplement, why does it redirect to Nitric Oxide? The page does not even mention the supplement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaMenace123 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Vasodilation involves an increase in blood flow, the article states that dialtion induces a decrease in blood-flow, which is incorrect. Dilation does however create a decrease in blood pressure.
The entire Nutraceutical section needs rework. First off GNC is not the sole purveyor of NO "supplements", as a matter of fact the bigger name is Body Fortress. Of course I am too lazy to rewrite appropriately. In addition I added some citation requests. Thank you, -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Older industrial process
In an older process, NO is produced by an eletric arc. This method is well studed and used in the production of nitic acid before the Oswald process, and is caled Birkeland-Eyde process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this following section, as it seems to be a couple of editors' contributions in disagreement, and unless it is tidied up it really doesn't add to the article. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
GNC markets the following: Increases Power Output at the Onset of Fatigue by 20%** Delays the Onset of Neuromuscular Fatigue During Exercise** Micronized Arginine Amplifies Nitric Oxide Effects* from here: http://www.gnc.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3535343 They do not claim dramatic muscle growth. The powder form, N.O. Loaded, claims "Volumizes Muscle Cells & Improves Strength* Micronized Arginine for Fast Absorption Generates Increase in Muscle Power* Triggers Physical & Mental Intensity*" from here http://www.gnc.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3523713 Again, they do not claim dramatic muscle growth with this product. GNC has begun to sell an oral "nitric oxide" product targeted for bodybuilders, with the claim that it dramatically increases muscle growth. The claim is grounded in an understanding of NO as being a vasodilator, and when taken prior to and after workouts, it enables muscles to receive more blood and therefore, more oxygen and nutrients. This is critical to maximal muscle exertion during training and recovery afterward. However, there are currently no valid studies supporting the hypothesis that orally ingested NO actually will cause vasodilation; additionally, while users of some supplements have claimed to experience results, these results are generally attributable to ingredients besides NO itself (proteins, creatine etc).
How do we get the importance of this page rated? It desperately needs this as this is a critical biological mediator and is key to regulating blood pressure and the prevention of atherosclerosis. Indeed, the importance of NO was highlighted in 1998 when Robert F Furchgott, Louis J Ignarro and Ferid Murad were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for work that led to the discovery of NO as a biological mediator. NO even has it's own peer-reviewed journal. JustAnotherKinase (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. This being a wiki, you can WP:Be bold, and rate it yourself. Go to the top of this talk, choose the project(s) that interest you, follow the links to their project page and look to see what they might say about their criteria for importance, and then come back here and edit the template to rate it yourself. By the way, these ratings are really only for internal use by their respective projects, and have little or no effect on how the general reading public sees the pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"sustained levels of increase NO production"
The 3rd sentence of the second paragraph reads: However, sustained levels of increase NO production result in direct tissue damage and contribute to the vascular collapse associated with septic shock, whereas chronic expression of NO is associated with various carcinomas and inflammatory conditions including juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, arthritis and ulcerative colitis.
The reference is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366709
Simply put, this sentence is not supported by the reference and the sentence does not appear to be a confirmed fact. Millions of people around the world supplement with Arginine and Citrulline to boost NO levels in the body without any of these alleged negative issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right—the reference refers only to a mechanism of tissue damage. I've moved the reference within the sentence accordingly, and marked the rest of the sentence as "citation needed". But let me point out here that oral arginine and citrulline are unlikely to significantly increase tissue levels of NO, and tissue damage occurs at NO levels altogether higher than those that dietary supplements would be likely to elicit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Possibly Confusing Terminology?
I think that the word "diatomic" should be changed to "binary", to me diatomic signals diatomic elemental forms, such as
- O2 , N2, Hg2, H2, etc.
This could lead to some confusion for people who don't completely understand diatomic elements. Of course i may be wrong! NO is a binary molecular compound, and while being diatomic, I feel that anyone who is beginning their study of chemistry could be confused by it. SaiferPhoenix (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- While term "diatom" does refer to a molecule consisting of two atoms of the same element, like those you mentioned, the adjective "diatomic" can technically be used to describe any molecule consisting of exactly two atoms. However, you make an excellent point about how that might get confusing, and in this sense "binary" is practically interchangeable with "diatomic", since "binary" describes any molecule made up of two non-metallic atoms (to the best of my knowledge.) I second this argument, and since it's reasonable enough, I've changed the sentence accordingly. Wikipedia asks it's users to edit "boldly", but I'm still rather new here, and if anyone has reason to say this change was rash, by all means, revert it.--SRGPaladin (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- We all learn this way. Binary compounds technically contain two elements, and thus at least two atoms, but perhaps more.  For example, water is a binary compound and is triatomic. So I'm afraid you're stuck using the exact word diatomic if you want to mean "two atom molecule". I've left it as "binary diatomic", which is exact. SBHarris 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The infobox designates the IUPAC name of this compound as "nitric oxide". Shouldn't the IUPAC name of this element be "nitrogen monoxide", or is there a special exception for this compound? I am not arguing for the title of the article to be changed, only the part of the infobox with the IUPAC name. T.c.w7468 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Anions and Cations
- That's because neither really is. The bond between the O and the N is a covalent bond, and therefore the molecule is not a salt. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I failed at wiki formatting.
I tried to fix a dead link in the external links section, but it just looks like wiki code on the front-end. Somehow I think that's still better than a dead link, so I left it. Grateful if someone can fix it. =)