Talk:Sodium nitroprusside

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

Non-medicinal uses[edit]

This page seems to be focused on the compound's use in medicine, but there seem to be other uses. It is used in the detection of methamphetamine and MDMA and seems to be a common drug-test reagent. If there are enough non-medicinal uses, a new section might help. -- 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the above. The page listed the chemical as non-hazardous, but common MSDS's (which should be pointed at by this page) list hazards identical to cyanide poisoning.

It was also mentioned as a candidate for next-generation optical memory devices. ("Наука и жизнь" mag.,, few years ago.)As stated in that article, it is normally transparent to red and green light; blue light gradually makes it black (i.e. no longer transparent to red and green), and red light reverses the effect. Please check that! 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mechanism of Action[edit]

"Its mechanism of action appears to be liberation of nitric oxide (NO), converting Haemoglobin to cyanomethaemaglobin". NO surely works by binding to the haem group of guanylyl cyclase, activating it and so increasing levels of cGMP, ultimately relaxing vascular smooth muscle. NO would be taken up by red cells and would convert some of their haem to methaemoglobin, but that is hardly the mechanism of action.Moletrouser (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


It says this is a paramegnetic ion. Off the top of my head, if it's Fe(II) with that ligand set it would be low spin and diamagnetic. Chris (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was right, and I've corrected it. Chris (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How in the world did this sort of gross problem creep in, I wonder. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


What's the link between Sodium nitroprusside and Nitroglycerin? In The Netherlands we don't know nitroprusside, only nitroglycerin. PizzaMan (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Answered my own question, sort of. Nitroglycerin is used under the tongue for angina. Nitroprusside is only used intravenously in the hospital against very high blood pressures. I guess that's why nitroprusside is just not mentioned in the dutch register of medication [1] PizzaMan (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Too many bonds for the N atom in the schematics[edit]

The -N=O ending in the schematics has too many links (3) between N and O. Should be 2 (N is 3-valent, while O is bivalent).

Could someone please fix the image?

The image was correct, before Materialscientist changed it. Please see metal nitrosyl. Nirmos (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
the image is incorrect: most would draw a triple bonding from N to O, of course: covalency, symmetry, and all that messy stuff... But no big deal, folks who work with metal nitrosyls know to expect weird drawings.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... there should be three bonds. If there are only two bonds, I would imagine the M-N-O bond would be bent. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but I am not sure the change is worth the bother. Sometimes we show M-CO with triple bonds between C and O and sometimes a double bond....--Smokefoot (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the page into a page devoted to SNP's medical uses and one that's more devoted to its non-medical uses.[edit]

I believe that we should create two pages: one devoted to its medical uses and one to its non-medical uses and chemical properties, partly because I would like to create a drugbox for SNP and seeing how this page isn't just about its medical uses it would be inappropriate for this page. Fuse809 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising an interesting idea. I do not agree because otherwise we encourage divorcing good medical science from good chemistry (with consequences like the incorrect structure that was inserted recently). There is probably consensus that the "nerdy" inorganic chemistry is rather narrow in impact and could be subordinated to the medical info. One could also "stack" the drug box with the chem box, possibly even putting the it on top. The anion is iconic in inorganic chemistry but not good for very much except the medical app. We few inorganickers would hate to see our compound leave our fold just because it is good for something. But your idea is not without merit and mine is only one voice. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I recommended it because this is the size the medical uses section would be if we were to combine the two on the single page. Plus, what's wrong with the image I used? There's nothing wrong with it from what I can tell, in fact it's a more accurate depiction of the compound's structure. Fuse809 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that your proposed expansion is particularly unusual. My advice is to omit the bulleted list of symptoms ("dizziness"). We usually do not include such otherwise all safety sections would be extremely long. According to the Chem MOS, we usually defer to the MSDS as being more authoritative than WIkipedia can be, and by deferring to the MSDS we save space. To get an idea of a pretty mature article see cisplatin. It's big and the chemistry is subordinated. About your misdrawn structure: show it to an chemist and they will explain. Its just a chemistry thing that has big implications for behavior. Aside from the structure, my preference is to show C explicitly. Thanks for the note, great to see someone interest in this article.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work putting together the "medication" material together. We don't like to fork articles unnecessarily. Since both articles are of modest length, so a merger will reduce duplication and add breadth and depth to the combined article. Chembox is actually able to show drug and pharma info. I'll help you with that, and I'll incorporate the current "medication" material into the current article, redirect that "article" here, and merge the edit history. We can expand the article here in future. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


As this article is mostly about the medication should have a "drugbox". Please placed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections[edit]

Typically follow WP:MEDMOS for meds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you start talking about it before you even define what it is? Have you seen CHEMMOS? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rifleman[edit]

Nice to see that article back together. Nitroprusside is an important coordination complex from a pedagogical perspective. This article is probably one of those cases where two MOS's apply. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravi to committed article editors[edit]

Thanks to the committed editors of this article. It is happening upon an article generally well done like this, vis-a-vis scope, sourcing, and accuracy, that I retain some hope for Wikipedia STEM articles. Brava/bravo, grazie. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done mechanism of action section, however[edit]

… I have to question whether the following paragraph is in the wrong article:

  • "A role for NO in various common psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia,[35][36][37][38] bipolar disorder[39][40][41] and major depressive disorder[42][43][44] has been proposed and supported by several clinical findings. These findings may also implicate the potential of drugs that alter NO signalling such as SNP in their treatment.[37][43] Such a role is also supported by the findings of the recent SNP clinical trial[45] and other clinical trials that have demonstrated the efficacy of minocycline (a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor) in treating the negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia.[46]"

It has nothing to do with the mechanism of action of the title agent (which is already well described in the first paragraph of the section).

If the point is that the article's title therapeutic agent is approved in treatment of these disorders—or even that it is being used off-label in their treatment—this needs to be stated explicitly, and citations provided—without a great deal of further work, one cannot readily see the valid connection between nitroprusside and this paragraph (either via text or citation titles). Even with either of these two positive "takes" on this text, it is inexplicit and far too long, and so undermines and overshadows the point of this section (drug mechanism of action).

Finally, if the suggestion (medical hypothesis) is being offered, that nitroprusside could be used in these disorders ("may also implicate the potential of drugs that alter NO"), then this needs to be stated explicitly, but only with citation. Otherwise it is WP:OR, and has no place. (Either the literature has suggested nitroprusside for these, or it has not, and the titles do not clarify. If not, Wikipedia cannot be the first to mention.)

Apart from the OR and length issues, it is a well-written and referenced paragraph, though; that it does not belong here, does not mean it should not go somewhere (NO and schizophrenia articles?). Le Prof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprof 7272 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does "nitroferricyanide" redirect here?[edit]

Not mentioned in text. (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Analytical reagent[edit]

"The destruction of disulfide bonds liberates cysteine from cystine and homocysteine from homocystine"

Shouldn't it be: cystathionine (disulfide linked) from homocysteine (broken up)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the English was garbled. Tried to repair it. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)