|Radical (chemistry) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 A serious ommssion
- 2 Wording in summary is very unclear
- 3 excuse
- 4 Ability to understandthe article
- 5 Are radicals always uncharged?
- 6 Observational Database?
- 7 improper referrals
- 8 Diagnostics
- 9 Formation
- 10 Combustion
- 11 loose definition
- 12 New "Free radical reaction" article needed
- 13 Stop this confusion please
- 14 Various edits for clarity
- 15 What the hell is "verdazys" mentioned under Persistent radicals?
- 16 O2 is not a radical
- 17 Confusion with ions?
- 18 Is there a not-so-loose definition?
- 19 Advice needed on proposed rewite of head section
- 20 Free radicals and health
- 21 Requested move 4 August 2015
- 22 Assessment comment
- 23 The correct dot for radicals?
A serious ommssion
Any article on radicals that does not list the common inorganic radicals and give their chemical formulas has a serious lacking. After all, the Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the General Reader, and not for chemists (and not for other experts in other fields).
Someone needs to explain something about these: borates, carbonates, nitrates, nitrites, hydroxides, peroxides, phosphates, sulfites, sulfates, chlorites, chlorates, perchlorates, chromates, permanganates, bromates, and iodates.18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- borates, carbonates, nitrates, nitrites, hydroxides, peroxides, phosphates, sulfites, sulfates, chlorites, chlorates, perchlorates, chromates, permanganates, bromates, and iodates
- Information on these is available. I don't think any of them are radical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Wording in summary is very unclear
"are atoms, molecules, or ions with unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration. These unpaired electrons" I would like to note that this phrase indicates that both the free electron, and the nucleus are both free radicles. this is inaccurate. --Christopherlee247 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what he is getting at, but I do believe the free electron can be trivially considered a radical. e- or H2O- would be radical. H+, the free proton, the free hydrogen nucleus, is not radical. "with unpaired electrons" is a pretty good starting definition for a radical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
excuse me there...I have an assignment about acid radicals and i tried to search for it on the wikipedia but all i could find was radicals as a whole...I'd be pleased if anyone could add some information about it...or even send me any article that explains exactly what are the acid radicals..thank you please contact : firstname.lastname@example.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ability to understandthe article
I hope you take this to be constuctive and friendly criticism, but i found the article very hard to understand, perhaps others feel the same. Its obvious the author(s) of this article spent a great deal of time and effort to write the article. Could it be put more into "laymans" terms to help other appreciate the subject more?
Thanks and best wishes
This page isn't particularly well organised/explained, insomuch as it talks about two different meanings of the word radical in chemistry. It would seem better to me to have a disambiguation page for this with a link to the exsisting Free radical page which is far more comprehensive, and another to a slightly expanded page explaining the use of the word in the sense of a substituent. --ChemRad 23:53, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC) acid radicals are of two types.dilute and concentrated acid free radicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
== vote for merge wir species
I'm not a chemist, but I've never heard of an atomic or molecular species before. If there is such a thing in chemistry, it should be linked to definition. If not, then that's some bad word choice.
It is clear that you are not a chemist then. "atomic or molecular species" is a very commonly used term in chemistry.
Are radicals always uncharged?
I think it is untrue to suggest that radicals are uncharged. Radicals can be charged.
The "uncharged" has got to go. Superoxide is both an anion and a free radical, the charge is irrelevant. Jasoninkid
A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents including radicals from a host of platforms is available. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary
The section titled "Elimination of systemic free radicals" contains the sentence "Since reactive oxidative species (ROS) like sunlight and carcinogens lead to the formation of free radicals, inhibition of free radicals therefore decreases the risk of tumoric growth." Sunlight is certainly not a free radical and not all carcinogens are either. This sentence makes no logical sense and should be re-written by the author to better express their argument. 188.8.131.52 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There are so many errors in this pare it should just be dieted. Jasoninkid
If memory serves Spin Traps are usually used in EPR experiments with free radicals should a part be written on them? Jasoninkid
- Probably, but radical symbols are often not used. They are not necessary, being implied by the chemical structure, and are usually only included for emphasis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Free radicals do not half to be created from a broken covalent bond, although they can, they can also be made by one e- reduction or oxidation of a atom or molecule, this line needs to be fixed. Jasoninkid
What is this obsession with no charge, "all species" should be most at most. Jasoninkid
O2 is not a radical. Jasoninkid
- Diradical is a more descriptive term, but this only applies to species where there are two unpaired electrons in degenerate orbitals. Both the 3Σg- paramagnetic and 1Σg+ diamagnetic states of O2 (i.e. what are commonly referred to as triplet and singlet dioxygen) are diradicals. The remaining non-aufbau singlet is not a diradical. This said, O2 is not a biradical as the unpaired electrons are not localised to spatially seperate centres. Eutactic (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Jasoninkid wrote many suggestion about what is radicals. I think there are two definition of radical. From the GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN PHYSICAL ORGANIC CHEMISTRY (IUPAC Recommendations 1994) radicals are molecules which have unpaired electron. On the other hand, according to recent trend at some fierld of chemistry, definition of radical contains the any chemically unstable molecules such as singlet state of biradical, ion and so on. I added about this in the section of "Loose definition of radicals" this article. Please read and develop it.--Jingxin 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
New "Free radical reaction" article needed
Free radical reaction needs to be created; free-radical reactions are a huge topic in chemistry; selectivity, homolysis and soforth is huge. 184.108.40.206 09:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can someone please check the image supplied in the first paragraph? It looks incorrect... 220.127.116.11 11:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop this confusion please
I have published several articles of original research in peer reviewed journals concerning oxygen free radicles.
These are not the same as side chain radicles attached to organic compounds.
This web page confuses the two, a criticism [see above] which is correct
Various edits for clarity
What the hell is "verdazys" mentioned under Persistent radicals?
I'm a chemist yet not a specialist but i never heard of this term. A little search on the net didn't bring any answers, just copies of the sentence on Wikipedia. Can anyone please explain what verdazys is and if not, it's probably a hoax and should be removed. The real bicky (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
O2 is not a radical
I went back and checked, it was 18.104.22.168 that added this heading. The oxygen molecule is, in fact a diradical species, at least in its ground state, which is known as triplet oxygen. This means O2 is usually better represented as ·O-O·, rather than O=O. This triplet state is relatively unreactive, and O2 must be excited to the singlet state in order to take part in combustion. This is the reason, I believe why we aren't all on fire right now. - Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, just saw that this has been covered above (in the section 'combustion') by someone with a better, more rigourous knowledge of the subject. - Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Confusion with ions?
The following sentence, temporarily removed from the head section, seems to confuse "radicals" with "ions":
- Free radicals may have positive, negative, or zero charge. [...]Ionizing radiation can create free radicals. The ionization process pushes an electron out of its orbit around an atomic nucleus causing the formation of electrical charges on atoms or molecules. If the free electron strikes a water molecule, the ionized molecule will produce a free radical.
Sure, a molecule can be a radical and also have nonzero charge; but the two concepts are independent, and ions like CO2−
3 or NH+
4 are not considered "radicals" (are they?)
Those two sentences are not quite wrong, but they will probably confuse the reader, especially if they are in the first paragraph of the article. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the sentence should just be reworded in a more careful manner. Maybe the emphasis should be that the ionising radiation causes the formation of free radicals through the ejection of single, unpaired electrons, which can react to produce further free radicals, as opposed to the production of a charged species. - Tomásdearg92 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- "What Is Ionizing Radiation?". Hss.energy.gov. Retrieved 2012-12-05.
Is there a not-so-loose definition?
The head section gives only the strict definition of "radical" that requires "unpaired electrons in an open shell". By this definition I would think that free methylene (carbene) :CH
2 in the singlet state is not a radical, but in the triplet state it is. However I have been told that free methylene cannot be called a "methylene radical" precisely because its ground state is the triplet. Which one is correct?
More generally, for the purpose of naming articles it seems we need a word meaning "has unsatisfied valence bonds", without regard for spin state. If "radical" is not OK, then what could we use?
The article mentions a "loose definition" of radical, namely "any chemically unstable molecule". But that definition is TOO lose, since it would include very unstable molecules like ethylene dione that are never called "radicals". Is there a "loose but not too loose" school that would allow using "radical" for any molecule with unsatisifed valence bonds? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Advice needed on proposed rewite of head section
Would some expert please check this draft, my attempt to expand the head section to make it a bit more accessible to non-specialist readers? Is the informal description "dangling bonds" appropriate, or misleading? Are the examples correct? Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since there were no complaints, the head was rewritten. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Free radicals and health
Free radicals are the enemy in many books, magazines and web sites about health. There's scant mention here of this idea, from whether it's a justified concern (presumably) to (if so) which free radicals and the whys, wheres and hows of dealing with them. There's much buzz about antioxidants in the diet, from vitamins to plant extracts, which help deal with free radicals. Could this be added to the article, even if it's only to point to other articles which deal with the topic more fully? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- the article already has a section on biology with links to relevant articles such as antioxidant and Free-radical theory. Health issues could be expanded in articles such as these. V8rik (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 4 August 2015
- Hopefully someone will fix the problems Amakuru pointed out. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|"Free radical" redirects here (intro bio topic) - tameeria 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The correct dot for radicals?
What is the correct dot for denoting radical? I see many uses of bullet but the online IUPAC Gold Book uses a super-scripted period, and apparently there are many more different dots. – says DD Tachibana 03:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)