Talk:Sodium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sodium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Sodium is part of the Alkali metals series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 21, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
December 5, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
December 21, 2016 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Sodium-collecting butterflies[edit]

Is that going to get included in the article? See this link, which even gives three papers to reference. Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

sodium  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.144.58 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC) 

Commercial Production Section error[edit]

From the article: "Downs Cell in which the NaCl is mixed with calcium chloride to lower the melting point below 700 °C. As calcium is less electropositive than sodium, no calcium will be formed at the anode. This method is less expensive than the previous Castner process of electrolyzing sodium hydroxide."

Two problems - 1. Reactive metal production is at the cathode, not the anode. Chlorine is produced on the anode. 2. Calcium is not the thermodynamically favored product; however, it is still produced (at the cathode). This requires a post production filtration and will result in trace calcium impurity in the finished sodium product.

A more correct statement for the article is: "Downs Cell in which the NaCl is mixed with calcium chloride to lower the melting point below 700 °C. As calcium is less electropositive than sodium, less calcium will be co-produced at the cathode. Despite post production filtration to reduce the calcium concentration to commercially acceptable level, this method is less expensive than the previous Castner process of electrolyzing sodium hydroxide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkmatterguy (talkcontribs) 02:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How about using Standard electrode potential (data page) to explain that Ca2+ is less likely to be reduced than Na+ to metal ? -- Mountainninja (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Minimum daily nutritional requirements[edit]

The section of this article that talks about recommended sodium intake says that adult humans require a minimum of 500mg daily sodium. However, in the source document cited to support this claim, it says, "Although the exact minimum requirements of sodium are not known, [...] the estimated minimum requirements for sodium" are 500mg for adults 18+. So, there is expressed in the source material considerable doubt about the accuracy of this figure, and the Wikipedia article does not include this, leading readers to believe, possibly erroneously and dangerously so, that the science is firm and reliable when it appears, judging by the source material at least, not to be.

As people learn about the dangers of a high-sodium diet and begin weaning themselves off of sodium, it will become increasingly vital for people to know what the recommended daily minimum intake of sodium actually is, and whether or not the science of sodium intake is conclusive. I'm hoping then that others more knowledgeable than I will research this subject more thoroughly and provide Wikipedia users with more accurate and better sourced information.

Thank you

67.197.139.156 (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaction with ice[edit]

Can sodium react with ice? If yes, what is the reaction rate constant?--5.15.20.210 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not appreciably. You have to go down to caesium (and I think also rubidium) in the alkali metal column before it will happen at such low temperatures. However, you should not conclude from this that storing sodium on ice is a good idea, because once the ice melts, you're in trouble. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sodium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


I might as well give this a try! Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Physical
  • This article is a little too focused on "what" and not enough on "why". We read that Na is a soft metal: cool, but why? We hear that it is not very dense, but why? We hear that it conducts heat and electricity well, but why? (They all have the same answer, going back to the [Ne]3s1 electron configuration; but this should be in there.)
    I mentioned it is because it has only one valence electron and you expanded by saying it results in weak metallic bond. I think this issue is resolved. Fuortu (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, that's fine. Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly it strikes me that we should allot more explanation and text to why Na has the properties it does at STP. It's OK to talk about the high-pressure work, but we should probably explain the standard-conditions properties first.
    I added more details about the properties at STP. Do you think it still needs more discussion? Fuortu (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    It's OK now. Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we have a more reliable source for the colour of Na gas? The current one is I suppose acceptable given its provenance, but if we can do better, I'd strongly prefer that.
    I couldn't find a reliable source, so I changed the information and added a reliable source. Fuortu (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    Are you sure that's what is meant by the source? From what I read, yellow is the 3s1–3p1 doublet absorption line (which would tend to strengthen the idea that it is violet in the gaseous state, since violet is the complement of yellow). In that case, this is stated already in the next paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    It says that sodium gives yellow colour after heating and colour doesn't change even after giving more heat. I removed it because it is discussed in next paragraph. Is that alright? Fuortu (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    That's fine. Double sharp (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • One major omission is atomic properties – surely we need to have something about the first ionisation energy and electropositivity?
     Done Fuortu (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Melting and boiling points? Preferably in the context of the trend down group 1?
    I think it's  Done, please tell me if I need to add more about it. Fuortu (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    I've added a little more myself, so I think it's OK now. Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks Fuortu (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Chemistry
  • Another thing I notice in this article is a tendency to give lots of facts and not show how they all come from a few basic principles. Shouldn't we mention how Na chemistry is mostly just that of Na+ (even in organosodium compounds)?
    I added that sodium's most common oxidation state is +1. We also explained why in previous paragraph. I think this issue is addressed. Fuortu (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK. Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we discuss the oxides together with the salts? I get that they're not technically salts, but they are ionic compounds as well following the same principles.
    Yes, I moved some discussion about oxides to "salts" and now they both are in one section. Fuortu (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK. Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't the last paragraph of "salts" more about applications?
    Moved it to appropriate section. Fuortu (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Great! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No coordination chemistry? We mention the crown-ether complex, yes, but there is enough to fill a section. (See Greenwood & Earnshaw)
    I think we have a reasonable amount now; it's difficult to say any more without having to talk about K, Rb, and Cs as well. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • One other thing that is not talked about is intermetallic compounds, like the alloys with K, Au, and Hg
    I added a section about intermetallic compounds. Thoughts? Fuortu (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK, that works. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Commercial production
  • End of penultimate paragraph is unreferenced.
    Added reliable sources. Fuortu (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK, thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Biological role
  • Some explanation of how Na has this role would be welcome.
    I am not sure what exactly we should explain. Can you please let me know? Fuortu (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    From reading on this (as you can see, I am more well-versed in chemistry than in biology...), we only need to add that it is Na+ functioning as an electrolyte. Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    I mentioned that Na+ is important electrolyte in neuron function. I think this addresses the problem. Fuortu (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that will suffice. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The rest looks all right at first glance. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the organisation be better decided upon – the story of 23Na is now split between "isotopes" and "occurrence", and I think it fits better in the former. Likewise, if you would like to keep the NaK graph (and I am a little doubtful on that, since it is quite large), I do believe we need a large discussion of intermetallic compounds before it. It is a little jarring IMHO to talk about such a compound when it has not even been mentioned earlier that this sort of thing is a possibility at all. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. I'll try to fix the issues you've noted above as soon as possible. Fuortu (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think 23Na should be in "occurrence" section because it is created in stars. Fuortu (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but then it's oddly split from the cosmogenic production of 22Na and 24Na. So I've moved it up to "isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. Thanks Fuortu (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you take a look at potassium, which is also a famous alkali metal and a GA. It may very well be helpful. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thanks :) Fuortu (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this nomination is going very well, so I do believe that I will be awarding GA status at the end of it after my remaining comments are addressed. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all the comments have been addressed, so I see no obstacle to passing the review. Thank you for your work on this article, and hope to see you again working on chemical elements! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It has been great to work with you on this article. Again, thanks for reviewing this article. :) Fuortu (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sodium laser guide star[edit]

There's a line under Free element mentioning laser guide stars that, as of a recent edit by 50.64.119.38, links Sodium lasers to Laser#Semiconductor lasers:

 Sodium lasers emitting light at the D line are used to create artificial laser guide stars that assist in the adaptive optics for land-based visible light telescopes.

I'm afraid this line may cause confusion. The last paragraph of the section pointed to does mention sodium gas lasers (not a type of semiconductor laser - that's just some sort of problem at the target page). But the cited sources talk about solid-state lasers (not necessarily semiconductor lasers) tuned to produce the sodium D line to excite atmospheric sodium atoms. This is not really completely well-explained at Laser guide star, either.

I don't know how to fully resolve the several issues here, but what I propose is undoing the link and rewording slightly as:

 Lasers emitting light at the sodium D line are used to create artificial laser guide stars that assist in the adaptive optics for land-based visible light telescopes.

My proposed working may avoid giving the impression that sodium vapor lasers are used for this application, but it places the explanatory burden on the Laser guide star article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)