From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

nuclear reactor cooling[edit]

I strongly disagree with the wording of this paragraph. "Other uses" is not the place to talk about accidents or undocumented nuclear safety. I would just mention some examples of sodium cooled reactors like Monju (where the mentioned accident happened) in Japan or Phénix and Superphénix in France. --Zakatan (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


I changed "different ['different what']" to "different minerals". I also changed "salt" to "halite". Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That was because of 19:49, 16 December 2011‎ (talk)‎ (36,866 bytes) (→Occurence: needs clarification, [Sodium] is found in many different, .... (different what?)). Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Biological role of sodium[edit]

There is an error in the section on the biological role of sodium.

It states that the DRI for sodium is 1.5g per day. That is the DRI for those over 50, or with medical conditions such as hypertension. The DRI for the population that doesn't fall into these categories is 2.3g per day. See reference 49

It is also stated that the average American consumes 2.3g of sodium per day. The average amount is actually 3.4g per day. See reference 49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgiesler (talkcontribs) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! --Stone (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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 (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)


"Sodium will also burn violently when heated in air." - links as a cite to some sales site for metals. No mention on there that I can see of sodium burning violently in air. Almost just seems like an ad link. Contrast that to: where he has a video of some sodium he ignited w/ the help of a blowtorch. "In this video we used a propane torch to light about 10 grams of it in a bowl, to see how it would burn. It burns sort of like magnesium, but easier to light. Sodium burning in air is very gentle, slow, controlled."

So, yeah, question the fact. Wonder if it is just ad link spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is questionable and not supported by the cited reference so I have removed the statement. Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it here. If you would like to add a different statement based on the reference, please feel free to do so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. As for adding references. Well, this is a semi-protected article, sooo, would have to register which, I'm disinclined to do, frankly. I like the fact that wikipedia allows anyone to edit it, and apart from occasional pain in attempting to correct a misleading image or two (there's still one or two of those I made little progress in), I'll just stick w/ my boring old IP. Feel free to add the cite to Theodore's site yourself tho :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Current text on physical properties:

Sodium at standard temperature and pressure is a soft metal that can be readily cut with a knife and is a good conductor of electricity. Freshly exposed, sodium has a bright, silvery luster that rapidly tarnishes, forming a white coating of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. These properties[which?] change at elevated pressures: at 1.5 Mbar, the color[clarification needed] changes to black, then to red transparent at 1.9 Mbar, and finally clear transparent at 3 Mbar. All of these allotropes are insulators and electrides.[3]

The properties that change with pressure are the ones in the first sentence, not the second. Also, tarnishing in air is a chemical property, not a physical property. I suggest the following revision:

Sodium at standard temperature and pressure is a soft, silvery metal that can be readily cut with a knife, and is a good conductor of electricity. These properties change dramatically at elevated pressures: at 1.5 Mbar, the color changes from silvery metallic to black; at 1.9 Mbar the material becomes transparent, with a red color; and at 3 Mbar sodium is a clear and transparent solid. All of these high-pressure allotropes are insulators and electrides.[3]

When freshly cut, sodium has a bright, silvery luster. If exposed to air, the surface rapidly tarnishes, darkening at first and then forming a white coating of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the text as you proposed, but moved the second paragraph to chemical properties. Materialscientist (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of symbol Na[edit]

No such word as natrium in Latin but nitrum exists used in reference to soda and natron, the latter ultimately from the Greek nitron. Thus the symbol Na more likely to have an association with natron else it would have been Ni, if nickel had not claimed it first!

Apparently the misattribution dates back to the 1930s according to John Emsley, author of Nature's Building Blocks where he had relied on more recent source material. Latin was not unknown to scholars and scientists in the mid 20th century so why the writers of texts did not check their dictionaries is beyond me - it was my first action on seeing natrium which seemed a most unlikely construction.

As this would not be a simple edit, I leave it to the writer of the article on how best to tackle such a deeply entrenched error.

Chrysippo (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Max burning temp, molar mass[edit]

I removed from infobox sodium: |Max burning temp=1003 K and |molar mass=22.9898g/mol. Not used in infobox element (do not show). -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Volume of UL of NaCl[edit]

I've added 2.7 ml of NaCl as the volume-equivalent of 2.3g of Na (UL), and changed this to half a US teaspoon (was 1 teaspoon). 1g Na->NaCl is (58.443/23)g = 2.541g, NaCl density is 2.16 g/ml. CS Miller (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2014 (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 (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaction with ice[edit]

Can sodium react with ice? If yes, what is the reaction rate constant?-- (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)

  • 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?
    Yes check.svg 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 Yes check.svg 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)
  • 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)