From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Yttrium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 24, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
August 28, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
September 17, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, High-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Older milestones[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format and de-stubbed by maveric149 on 14 Nov 2002. Elementbox converted 11:18, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:22, 28 June 2005).


While reviewing tomorrow's "Today's Featured Article" for typos and such, I found this sentence: "Xenotime, a REE phosphate, is the main HREE ore containing up to 60% of yttrium as yttrium phosphate (YPO3)." I'm not dedicated enough to pay 30 bucks to look up the citation, but according to the xenotime and phosphate articles, phosphate is PO4, not PO3. I found some mention of YPO3 by using Google, but it was never identified as yttrium phosphate. Another problem is the 60% figure. PO4 has more atomic mass than yttrium, so how can the ore be 60% yttrium? PO3 is also too heavy to explain that statistic. Does it mean that yttrium is 60% of the rare earth metal, or that yttrium phosphate is 60% of the ore? If so, that isn't what it says. Art LaPella (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Its percent of the REE elements. The ref says:60% Y; 11% La+Ce+Pr+Nd; 1.2 Sm; 0.01%Eu; 3.16% Gd; 1% Tb; 7.5% Dy; 2% Ho; 6.2 Er; 1.27% Tm; 6 %Yb; 0.63 Lu.--Stone (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice article but ...[edit]

Can an article really be FA quality if it doesn't reference Pokémon? Houston, Texas sealed a to-be-open-in-100-years time capsule on January 21, 2001 that contained Pokemon characters and a sample of YBCO (yttrium barium copper oxide). To top it off, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech. Seriously, though, this is a great article; I wish it was around when I had Chemsitry. Congrats. -- Suntag 03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL - thanks for the compliment. --mav (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Periodic group[edit]

Surely the group 3 elements are Sc, Y , La, Ac? NOT Lu!! See, for example, long-form periodic table. Petergans (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Both conventions are common and are often a source of debate. The group 3 element article tries to explain the story. --Itub (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Common? I've never seen it. Lu is a lanthanide in all the standard inorganic texts, Greenwood & Earnshaw, Cotton & Wilkinson, Housecroft & Sharpe, Shriver & Atkins ... The debate was concluded long ago. Petergans (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just last month there was an article published in J. Chem. Ed. continuing the debate (advocating La and Ac in group 3), and it cites a few books and articles that follow the opposite convention. See [1]. There are also four letters about this topic in the same issue.[2] --Itub (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable! In 50 years as a chemist I have never, until yesterday, seen a periodic table with Lu anywhere other than in the lanthanide series. Web elements is a first for me and, as far as I'm concerned, just another example of nonsense on the web. IUPAC puts La under Y. There is no ambiguity about it, just that the lanthanide series convertionally starts with La and is usually written separately. Petergans (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not nonsense on the Web. There have been many textbooks published since the 1980s that put Lu under Y (I can't say whether they are the majority or the most influential). Just one example: Wulfsberg's Inorganic Chemistry. Wulfberg explains his reasoning in a footnote. In this letter to JCE, the authors looked at 35 textbooks for what they call "flyleaf periodic tables". If you look at the figure in the letter, among the textbooks published since 1984, 7 put La under Y, 7 put Lu, and 2 put all 15 lanthanides like IUPAC. IUPAC's table is ambiguous. It doesn't put any specific element under Y; it puts all the lanthanides there! --Itub (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm flabbergasted. I thought elements were put in the same group because they have the same electronic configuration. The trivalent ions of Sc, Y, La, Ac have a noble gas electronic configuration. Lu(III) does not. How can it be put in the same group? (Don't answer that). I stand by the word nonsense!Petergans (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll dare to answer despite your request. I'm relatively neutral on this issue because I think it is largely an arbitrary convention, but I enjoy playing devil's advocate. 1) the periodic table predates knowledge of electronic configurations, and sometimes exceptions are made in the name of chemical properties (or even in the name of layout, in my opinion), such as putting helium above neon instead of above beryllium (although some tables do put He above Be!) 2) the relationship between the electronic configurations of Y and La is essentially the same as the one between Al and Ga: Al and Ga are both s2p1, but Ga has a full d shell that Al doesn't have; Y and Lu are both s2d1, but Lu has a full f shell that Y doesn't have. Trivalent Lu also has a noble gas configuration, in the sense of having no s and p electron in the valence shell, same as trivalent gallium. 3) if one looks at the neutral atom, La has the same configuration as Y, but that's an anomaly in that it doesn't follow the aufbau rule. But we don't move elements such as copper and palladium to another group just because they happen to deviate from aufbau. Finally, one slight disadvantage of putting La under Y is that you end up with a discontinuous d block in the long form of the periodic table, which looks a bit odd in my opinion. --Itub (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(no indent) The counter to that argument is that, in the spirit of Mendeleev, elements a grouped together because of similarities in chemistry. Therefore it is the electronic configuration in the "group oxidation state" that counts, not the configuration of the atoms. Cu is the classic example [Ar]4s13d10 in the atom, but in Cu(I) the relative energies of 4s and 3d are reversed and it is the s electron which is lost on oxidation of the metal, so Cu sits comfortably in a group with Ag and Au. For Au, the f electrons are discounted as they belong to the filled 4-shell comprising 4s, 4p, 4d and 4f.

We can argue this one for ever, but what concerns me now is that the basic image of the long-form periodic table, which is used in WP for all the elements, puts Sc and Y above Lu and presents La and Ac as a group on their own. I believe that this is misleading as it does not clearly distinguish the lanthanide and actinide series from the main-group elements and transition metals. long-form periodic table is much better in that respect. Petergans (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Greenwood was used as a reference in this article and Itub is correct about the definition of what is a group 3 element. --mav (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Greenwood puts La under Y (like Peter said), and discusses Sc, Y, La, and Ac on the same chapter (the lanthanides are on a separate chapter). So if you want this article to be consistent with the source, it should say La. --Itub (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You are correct and thanks for the fix. --mav (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lanthanoid contraction[edit]

I added this sentence:

"Even though the lanthanoids are one row farther down the periodic table than yttrium, the similarity in atomic radius may be attributed to the lanthanoid contraction."

I don't have a reference for this, but it's common sense. Comments? Crystal whacker (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a common misconception around about the lanthanide contraction. "Very simply, the effect results from poor shielding of nuclear charge by 4f electrons". True, but it is not unique or limited to 4f electrons. It is an example of the normal trend for atomic radius to decrease, across each row of the periodic table, with increasing atomic number. It is most clearly illustrated in the trivalent lanthanides because there are no effects of changing oxidation state. Divalent ions of the first transition series show the same trend when crystal/ligand field effects have been removed.
The real importance of the lanthanide contraction is not so much in the lanthanides as in the the effect it has on the elements following them: La(III) is larger than Y(III), but Hf(IV) is almost the same size as Zr(IV). I give the oxidation states, because that's where the chemistry occurs, where it is so difficult to separate Zr from Hf. In the context of the present article, we can see that the similarity in chemistry of Y(III) and Lu(III) is analogous to the similarity of Zr(IV) and Hf(IV), as suggested by Crystal whacker. It's not usually discussed as an effect of the lanthanide contraction because Y and Lu are in differerent groups. Greenwood and Earnshaw don't mention it. I'll have to have a word with Norman about that, when I next see him. Petergans (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
They do mention it, in the chapter about lanthanides, page 1234 (I've added the page number). But please, when you meet Norman, tell him I asked when are they going to publish a new edition! :) --Itub (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's unlikely to happen. Alan Earnshaw is no longer with us. He had a heart attack about 6 months after the first edition was published. About 6 months after the second he had another, fatal one. My personal opinion is that it was the strain of working on such a huge project that finally did for him. He was a good friend and it's sad that he died so young. Petergans (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, I didn't know. I really love this book and bought both editions (although eventually gave the older one to a friend); it would have been fantastic to see it updated. --Itub (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that, Peter. It's very interesting. I'm aware that the lanthanide contraction explains the similarity in size between Zr(IV) and Hf(IV) and so on through the d-block metals. It's not typically invoked to explain the similarity in size between yttrium and later lanthanides, but given the context in the article it seemed relevant. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosch Spark Plugs[edit]

Yttrium is used in Bosch spark plugs: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thundersky / Winston Lithium Iron Phosphat batteries with Yttrium[edit]

The Chinese battery company Thundersky / Winston writes about the use of Yttrium to improve Lithium Iron Phosphat Batteries.--Pege.founder (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Yttrium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Yttrium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Three samples of yttrium, a silvery rare earth metal. The left and the middle sample are sublimed dendritic and the cube on the right was created by argon arc remelting. Yttrium is named after the town of Ytterby, Sweden, where it was first discovered, and is used industrially in making phosphors such as those in cathode ray tubes and LEDs.

Photo: Alchemist-hp
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Why is the first letter of the element pronounced "i" as in inside and not "ue" as in mueller, when the village it named after is pronounced by the latter? The article does not explain this and the Swedish wikipedia does not indicate this.. Is it an error in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because this word has been fully assimilated into English, and now obeys pronunciation rules of English. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The pronounciation guides seems to be original research as there is no source given for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

[Quick search on Merriam-Webster confirms it.] I suspect all of them are ref'd to there except the superheavies which are mostly ref'd to, so perhaps it's an implied ref like we use for the other infobox fields to CRC?! Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Standard Atomic Weight[edit]

The Standard atomic weight is way off. It's supposed to be ~88.90585 and it just says "2". I'd fix it myself but I'm not sure how to. Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talkcontribs) 17:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was in the template! Hard to find but easy to fix!! --Stone (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yttrium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)