Talk:Zinc/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"hundreds of thousands of proteins"[edit]

It is estimated that 3000 of the hundreds of thousands of proteins in the human body contain zinc prosthetic groups

It is estimated that there are between 20,000 and 25,000 genes in the human genome. Since proteins are the product of gene translation, there shouldn't be more proteins than genes. And the whole sentence needs a citation. Icek 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I have learnt that there are indeed more proteins than genes due to alternative splicing. But there should be a citation nonetheless. Icek 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe each gene can code for multiple proteins due to RNA splicing and Protein splicing. --78.86.137.221 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC definition for transition metals[edit]

NOTE: This section is transcluded so the widest-possible number of people can comment

I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:

  • IUPAC defines transition metals specifically as being those elements in groups 3 to 11. This excludes the group 12 elements!

ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).

Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):

Table showing the more IUPAC consistent element categories

So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how many agree to this definition so waiting would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked one of my college chemistry textbooks and it agrees with IUPAC. If this definition for transition metals is already widespread, then we may not need to wait for IUPAC's final revision of the Red Book. On the other hand, the updated document may impact other parts of the table and / or nav images. I'm simply not sure how or when we should proceed. --mav (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the comment period ended in 2004, according to the root of the file you quoted. The text approved in 2005 was (p. 51):

The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.

As far as I'm aware, there are no new inorganic recommendations planned for four or five years or so (until they get round to sorting out inorganic Preferred IUPAC names). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I saw this and assumed it also applied to the inorganic nomenclature. My bad. I also remember something about unfilled d-suborbitals as part of the definition, which also excludes group 12 elements (with a complication with at least one Hg compound). --mav (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of this term has always been a problem- whether to base the classification on chemistry or atom electron configuration. I was taught at school (1942 Sherwood Taylor text book) that the transition metals did not include Cu group and Zn group - only then to be told at university that Cu was a transition metal. IMO we should go with current IUPAC - that definition has been around for at least 40 years (Cotton and Wilkinson 2d edition 1966)- it leaves a little problem of colouring in and explaining the position of Zn group which is neither main group nor transition metal, but is in the d block according to our chart- although the chart conflicts with the definition in the article (sic "..highest energy electron is in a d orbital") which would seem to exclude both copper (3d10 4s1) and zinc (3d10 4s2) - if our list of electron configurations is right. Best of luck.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current IUPAC definition (quoted above) gives us freedom to include group 12 or not. Let's not forget that Cotton & Wilkinson doesn't class scandium and yttrium as transition metals either, on chemical grounds. Greenwood and Earnshaw agrees with our current classification except for lanthanum and actinium, which they (correctly in my view) class as transition metals. I seem to remember that the edition of Sherwood Taylor that you quote classes thorium and uranium as transition metals and, in the case of thorium ([Rn] 7s2 5d2), a naive or dogmatic application of the electron configuration criterion would force us to do the same! Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO IUPAC does not clearly define the matter, that's why such a long discussion is needed. My experience is very close to the Axiosaurus' one. The first simple definition refers to empty d orbitals at the elemental state whereas at university I was taught that it's more useful to include group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) as well because they form ions having empty d orbitals - that is the Cotton Wilkinson definition. This is supported by their behaviour, for instance because they can form coloured complex as the other transition metals. I've never heard that the 12th group (Zn, Cd, Hg) can be included in the transition metals because their behaviour, i.e as catalist, is completely different than the others due to their full d shell. Most of my teachers would have marked as a serious mistake. Cotton Wilkinson (III edition, 1972) includes Scandium and Yttrium between the transition metals. Chemical behaviour should prevail as even Mendeleev based and actually built the periodic table on this characteristic. Some authors try to bridge this describing group 3-12 as d block. Please do not be misled by the shape of the periodic table or, worse, by aestetics issues. Chemistry is an experimental science and sometimes cannot be oversimplyfied. --Avogadro-I (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the table is so purty with the colors! And we'd have one less thing to argue about discuss - that would be boring. ;) --mav (talk)

Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) allows us to go againt IUPAC occasionally, when circumstances demand it! Physchim62 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why and what would replace it? --mav (talk)
does not add enough information, and within the TMs, the variations in chemistry are larger than those between Ac and Ln's. Any of the two colors used now would be fine, or some random mix of the two too. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actinides and lanthanides are distinct enough for us to label them as separate element categories. That combined with the lack of consensus on what is an inner transition tells me that we should leave well enough alone. --mav (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF4 has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d8 electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone agrees that mercury is a transition metal due to the observation of HgF4 under exotic conditions. See the article on HgF4 for details. --Itub (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing suggestion to Merge d-block and Transition metal[edit]

Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I'm glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Kimmie is wrong, too bad I say. (^_^) Other than that, I agree they should remain separate articles (though that's probably because I am of the firm opinion that the d-block and the transition metals should be different groups). Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

refs[edit]

  • comodity report
  • Dawkins, J.M. "Zinc and spelter - Notes on the early history of zinc from Babylon to the 18th century, compiled for the curious" Oxford. Zinc Development Association
  • Zinc, Cadmium and Mercury: "A Classic of Science" The Science News-Letter, Vol. 19, No. 512 (Jan. 31, 1931), pp. 75-77
  • Zinc Handbook of Frank C. Porter
  • Zinc in Soils and Plants of A. D. Robson --Stone (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) --Stone (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)|[reply]
  • McNeil, Ian (1990). An Encyclopaedia of the History of Technology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415013062.

Expand section - Production[edit]

I see a {{expand section}} template was added to the Production section. What all is being looked for?--Wizard191 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mining distribution[edit]

As i have found with many metal articles the mines in the east of Australia should be in the west and maybe have a higher percentage

If true, please, at least, provide a link to a source to back this up. That way we can modify it properly. Wizard191 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dots for mining % per country is always located near the capital an does not show regional ditribution of mining within the country.--Stone (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the caption to the maps ... Turgan Talk 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the mention of Artana (redlink) in Kosovo should be considered advertising and consequently be removed as there does not appear to be independent corroboration of Kosovo having substantial Zinc resources. Opinion based on a quick google news search. 125.237.255.252 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Edits: 13:03, 20 February 2009 83.254.188.120 (Talk) (91,031 bytes) (undo) 13:04, 20 February 2009 83.254.188.120 (Talk) (91,031 bytes) (undo)[reply]

Löhneysen or Löhneyes[edit]

von Löhneysen or Löhneyes is the question. The spelling is so similar, but the von Löhneysen are real family with some ties to mining with Georg Engelhard von Löhneysen being Berghauptmann from 1552 - 1622.--Stone (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


comments/todo[edit]

  • I have strong objections about the oxidation state of +1 if a reference from the 1800s is used. Also, SciFinder does not seem to find anything about zinc(I). Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organozinc compound is a fairly large page. Surely a paragraph can be added with something from there.[1] Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Affinity-table.jpg contains a symbol for zinc that may be relevant enough to be added to the history section. Or this. Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
zinc(I) is well established in form of Zn22+ in raman of ZnCl2/Zn glasses, see zinc chloride, and now in some compounds LZn2L (doi:10.1021/ja053819r) as well as in the first compound characterised decamethyldizincocene- the historic ref whilst interesting is unnecessary in the context.
Sorry for being unclear, but I meant that for the original O.S. +1 statement, another, more recent ref should be (also) added since a 1850 ref about this looks very sketchy to me. Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Nergaals comments I would add:-

  • Many compounds are still to be added to the compounds section- I shall add a few -- when we have more material to go at an extensive copy edit of the section will probably be required to pull it all together.
  • Zinc corrosion chemistry is a broad topic, it warrants a proper article of its own as this is a major use and is often used to illustrate the position of zinc in reactivity series. I recollect that the surface layer forming on exposed zinc coatings depends on the environment- e.g. city, rural, maritime and isn't quite as we have made it sound. --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zinc phosphate as dental cement. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added an overview of the chemistry to the chemistry and compounds section stressing the lack of transition metal behaviour. I have referenced the german wiberg edition rather than add the translated version - - although as my German is rubbish I had to check the translated version- can someone please check that the later German version actually says what I have referenced.--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot about this point. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Zn carbon compound- Zn2C is quoted in the article but Greenwood says there is an acetylide ZnC2.--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zn2C exists. But you should also add the ZnC2 one too. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you a reference for Zn2C I have this one doi:10.1016/S0925-9635(99)00231-9 but as I haven't access to the journal I can't see the conditions under which this phase is stable. Interestingly american elemnts sell zinc carbide [2] which they say is ZnC but I can't find any other reference to that. --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the journal before and it seems that I remember wrongly. They report a 1:2 ratio, so ZnC2. Nergaal (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything this is the best example of a transition metal behavior. Group 2 elements do not form [M2]2+ centers, so yes, it is a definite keep. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Group 2 DO! RMg2R now known (and mentioned in this article)- see low valent magnesium compounds. My point was about the description of the bonding from the Cp* to zinc in the metallocene as π-bonding- is this a technically correct description of the bond?--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production- I haven't got access to the Frank Porter book except as a partial view via the web - the chem. equations for the roast-leach-electrowin process look wrong to me-- my understanding was that electrowinning was required (i.e. an "overpotential" on the zinc surface at the aluminium cathode) otherwise you'd expect electrolysis of a sulfate solution to generate hydrogen gas rather than deposit zinc (electrochemical series)- zinc is deposited and oxygen generated in such a cell. Can someone whose got full acess check the book --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reference [3] which shows the equations ofr metal extraction and discusses the overpotential issues - --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==History== section is currently a mess; mostly a collection of facts thrown together in chronological order. Content there is good but needs to be reorganized into a thematic set of subsections. The ===Chemistry and compounds=== subsection could use some subsectioning and a possible promotion to a level 2 section. Once that is sorted, an extensive copyedit will need to be done to reduce redundancy and tighten the prose b/c some sections in the article are getting longer than what is needed. Of course, any removed material that is cited should be moved to more-focused articles. After that, I'd like to submit this for A-class review and then as a FAC. --mav (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section reorganized. We really need a better image for the ancient use of brass part. I can't find anything on Commons or free images on the web. Need an image showing really old brass, preferably BC. --mav (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which one of these is better:
File:Brass ornament.jpg
File:Tibetan Bodhisattva of Compassion.jpg
File:Hemmoorer Eimer.jpg
File:Brass Lion Wine container.jpg

Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why separate Compounds and Chemistry sections?

I don't understand the logic behind having separate sections for chemistry and compounds b/c the later follows from the former too closely, IMO. The prose in each section right now also does not provide enough distinction for me; I'd be hard pressed to know where more material in this topic area should go. What is needed, IMO, is to combine all the material in one section again, and find a better way to organize it in that section via subsections. But I'd like to see if there is a logical reason to have things the way they are before I start that. --mav (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We skipped this concept for FA Niobium and Germanium and I merged the two sections today ( before this was posted) in the Arsenic article so I think we should implement this in our style guide!--Stone (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding style guide we have to document the following for any element, (a) the chemical reactivity of the element itself, in particular for metals corrosion, reactivity to acids/bases heat etc. (b) trends in coordination number, types of bonding, the role of oxidation states where applicable and similarities to other members of the same group and adjacent elements etc. etc. (c) a narrative on the binary compounds (d)a narrative of organometallic compounds. Trends are not easily explained when just itemising compounds so I am not sure what Mav is getting at when he states that the "prose in each section right now also does not provide enough distinction for me".
As far as I can see the only difference between what Zinc and arsenic is that there there are two paragraphs in the characteristics section in arsenic and with zinc compounds are in separate section. There doesn't seem much to do. Am I missing something?--Axiosaurus (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that in reference to the arbitrary splitting of half of the ===Compounds and Chemistry=== subection under ==Characteristics== to a ===Chemistry=== subsection and a new level 2 ==Compounds== section that was completely separate from the subsection. Both the section and subsection talked about chemistry and compounds. The organization in the article now is more logical. ==mav (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was right- I was missing something!--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do by section[edit]

Ok, let's see if this is more productive; put comments/todo in sections here:

  • Infobox
  • why is isotope 69 listed and 72 is not?
  • Zn-72 in the table now and Zn-69 taken out (otherwise, all the other minute-range isotopes should also be added). --mav (talk)
  • Characteristics
  • Compounds/chemistry issues
  • I have tried to restructure the section. Does it look ok now? Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. But now needs to be summarized given that the detail has been moved to Compounds of zinc. --mav (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still now. Just needs a final copyedit. --mav (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the equations and the table really necessary?
  • Could be removed once that section is summarized. --mav (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now gone. --mav (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health issues
  • My understanding is that zinc can cause allergic reactions if one is sensitised to it by constant skin exposure in the presence of moisture. In finland I understand cashiers who work with coins, are recommended to wear protective gloves because of this, since european union coinage uses an alloy with some zinc. Would this be accurate? Can't bring up references at this point. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. I found the reference and it is nickel that is the culprit, not zinc; and our article on it covers the subject admirably, including the problems with one and two euro coins. My abject apologies for the error. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All is well Cimon - no harm done. :) --mav (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion wrpt the classification of zinc as a transition metal is necessary. IUPAC defines zinc as not a transition metal, and I have heard some researchers also not considering zinc a TM. Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
check out section 2 above - where this topic is discusses - its a thorny issue- some say TM some say not --Axiosaurus (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
  • According to that article, zinc may be part of the alloy. And no mention is made that it would be a major part. I consider orichalcum to be like bronze in this regard (even more so). In short, I don't think a mention is needed given the tenuous and not at all well-established link. --mav (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uses in coins?
  • Mentioned in applications section. --mav (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now also mentioned in history section (brass Roman coins). --mav (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
alchemical view on zinc?
  • Mention of "philosopher's wool" added. Paracelsus was an alchemist and he is mentioned. --mav (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Farnsworth, Marie (1949). "Metallographic Examination of a Sample of Metallic Zinc from Ancient Athens". Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear: 126–129. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) andWeinder, Ernst (1993). Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110148091. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) point out that zinc was found in a agora datin back to the second century B.C.
  • Production
  • It would be nice to have some energetic requirement for the production of a tonne of metal zinc
  • References
  • Which of the two references is the better substitute for the webpage?--Stone (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--Stone (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the differnce between Ref 9 and 17 both are Greenwood but one is linked to the Bibliography section the other is full text. But 17 needs page numbers. --Stone (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) done--Axiosaurus (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compounds

Removed stuff[edit]

This article has a lot of content that is not really needed. To help reduce the size of the prose and thus increase readability, I have moved some text here for discussion and hopefully moving to other articles. Uncited text that seems superfluous is simply being removed as well as text duplicated at compounds of zinc that is not tightly focused to the element itself. --mav (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds[edit]

The bond strength of these zinc-zinc bonds have been reported to be rather high (60 kcal/mol) and are thought to contain a large 4s character.

Comment: Would like to use this, but it needs a cite. Is Resa the source? --mav (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passive layer is also destroyed by reaction with mercury(II), forming an amalgam.

History[edit]

Dr. John Lane is said to have carried out experiments, probably at Landore, prior to his bankruptcy in 1726.[1]

Comment: Not sure how this fits since no mention made of experiment results. --mav (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Readded per below. --mav (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny the Elder mentioned an ointment that was probably zinc oxide, which was used to heal wounds and sore eyes.[2] Marco Polo documented the production of zinc oxide in Persia in the 13th century.[2]

Move to zinc oxide (unsigned).

Production[edit]

Zinc mines and refineries in Europe include Tara, Galmoy and Lisheen in Ireland, Zinkgruvan in Sweden and Artana in Kosovo.

Comment: Europe is only one part of the world and this is uncited. --mav (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide, 95% of the zinc is mined from sulfidic ore deposits, in which sphalerite ZnS is nearly always mixed with the sulfides of copper, lead and iron.

Comment: Would really like to use this but can't find cites for it. Help needed. --mav (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - readded. --mav (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following electrolysis makes it necessary to precipitate the also leached sulfates of other metals, like iron, nickel and copper.

Comment: I'm not sure what it intends to say. No cite either, so it is hard to check. --mav (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better: During leaching other metals like iron, nickel and copper are also leached and end in the zinc sulfat solution as sulfates. These sulfates would also be reduced by the electrolysis process and end up in the zinc electrodes, to prevent this the metals have to be sepaarted from the solution by precipitation.
That first sentence is still confusing... Are you trying to say that the leaching process for those other metals results in zinc sulfates? --mav (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During leaching other metals like iron, nickel and copper are also leached and end in the zinc sulfat solution as iron sulfate, nickel sulfat and copper sulfat. These sulfates will also be reduced by the electrolysis process at the zinc electrode. The solution of metall salts from the leaching process

has to be freed from all metalls except zinc by precipitation of the other metall salts.--Stone (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZnSO4 + H2O → Zn + H2SO4

Comment: misleading chemistry. O2 is produced details in electrowinning

Alloys[edit]

Zinc alloys with titanium and copper are used in building facades, roofs or other applications in which zinc is used as sheet metal and for methods such as deep drawing, roll forming or bending.

Comment: Would like to use this but no ref and I can't find anything on Google Books. --mav (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity[edit]

Ingestion of 1–2 g zinc sulfate ( 225–450 mg of zinc) produces emesis. Ingestion of 12 g zinc over 2 days caused only lethargy and ataxia. 4 g zinc gluconate caused vomiting after 30 minutes. Chronic ingestion of 440–660 mg zinc sulfate for for several months produced a copper deficiency and sideroblastic enema and Neutropenia. Chronic ingestion of 425 pennies was fatal due to bacterial and fungal sepsis which could attack the gastrointestinals due to severe bleeding and diarrhea 70–80% of the ingested zinc is fecal excreted while the rest is excreted by sweat and urine.

Due to the vomiting effects of zinc salts a gastrointestinal decontamination is normally not necessary, but calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate is given to chelate the zinc in the gastrointestinal and minimize the uptake of zinc.

Inhalation of zinc chloride can lead to chemical pneumonitis and an adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and is sometimes fatal due to extensive interstitial and intra-alveolar fibrosis. An example is that 10 people died after a smoke bomb exploded in a tunnel.[3]

Copper is bound to the metallothionein produced as response to the high zinc concentrations and is excreted, because it binds better to the metallothionein than zinc. This can lead to a copper deficiency. Barceloux, Donald G. (1999). "Zinc". Clinical Toxicology. 37 (2): 279–292. doi:10.1081/CLT-100102426. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Comment: Was in hidden comment. Needs to be clean-up, wikified and cited. --mav (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I have reinstate the text on John Lane. This may well have been the first series attempt to smelt zinc on a commercial basis. I suspect that the earlier references are to its production as a chemical curioisty.

On the other hand I have grave doubts as to the text about zinc been known in the West in antiquity. I can believe that archaeologists have found it deposited in ancient furnaces, but I rather doubt that contemporaries even tought about what it was, or distinuished it from lead and tin, which will also condense from fumes. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about John Lane but we are going to have to say something a bit more about what he did or may have contributed to the study of zinc. The other issue you refer to needs to addressed by finding better wording for the West & antiquity sentence. --mav (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is one of the inaccessibility of the published material on his life. My impression is that the statements are credible, but vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry sections[edit]

If I were to peer-review this article (which I won't) I would suggest that the chemistry section is very weak. The fact is that zinc chemistry has more in common with the chemistry of the transition metals than with the chemistry of the alkaline earths. The similarities in the latter case arise because of the +2 oxidation state in common. The issue of ionic size is not mentioned - not even an ionic radius in the properties templates. No mention of the stability of zinc complexes in spite of the importance of this aspect for biological activity. Inadequate coverage of Zn in organic chemistry. I will try to remedy some of these defects, but I'm very busy at the moment, so it may take some time. Petergans (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We moved a lot of chemistry info to Compounds of zinc. How is that article? --mav (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poor. The above comments apply equally. A lot of factual data without context or real understanding. I think there is a stuctural problem here, namely, how to give a fair presentation of the element, in this case metallic zinc, and also its chemistry, which involves the element in an oxidation state other than zero. This applies to many of the articles in the "element" series. Maybe what is needed is an article such as "The chemistry of [element]" rather than "Compounds of [element] which would give more emphasis to relationships with other elements, such as those in the same periodic group. In neither of the articles on zinc is there any comparison with cadmium and mercury, a major omission im my view. My model for "The chemistry of [element]" would be Greenwood and Earnshaw, Chemistry of the elements Or maybe a closer parallell would be an article "Chemistry of the [elements]" zinc, cadmium and mercury in this case? Petergans (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The Group 12 element article would be the place for a good comparison, but the zinc article should include the similarity of the three elements with their low boiling point...--Stone (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing my attention to the group 12 element article; unfortunately the quality of that article is extremely poor.
On another point, why does the periodic table in the infobox give the number of neutrons as 35 when none of the 5 stable isotopes has this neutron number? Petergans (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact the chemistry within a group is so often similar (Greenwood shows this similarity well), I would prefer us to avoid too much duplication with what our group articles and their yet-to-be-created daughter articles should contain. Therefore, I generally oppose the creation of 'Chemistry of ... ' articles for individual elements or for us to go into too much detail on that aspect in element articles themselves. This is an overview article and therefore should have good but brief introductions to the most essential aspects of the topics it covers. More detail can and should be in other articles per WP:SS. That said, it sounds like the current section about the chemistry and compounds of zinc needs to be improved. Any ideas on what such a section should cover should be discussed here (keeping in mind that a detailed discussion of the entire group's chemistry is more appropriately placed elsewhere). --mav (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of comment is really unhelpful as it bears on hypothetical situations. The import of my criticism has been mis-understood. I am concerned that chemical facts need to be put in context, not simply presented as a list. I will attempt to do this, but as I have said previously, I'm very busy at the moment, so please be patient.Petergans (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Planning what articles under a WikiProject should contain is not unhelpful - it is the purpose of the WikiProject. What would be helpful here is for us to develop a framework on what this article should contain; keeping in mind how this article should fit in with similar articles and should not go into unneeded detail or duplicate too much with what other articles should contain. You know a great deal about chemistry but don't have adequate time to write much yourself - at least at this time. That's fine. But if you have a little time, then please add to your original comment - which was helpful but still not detailed enough given how poor you said the current chemistry section is. --mav (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have forgotten most of my chemistry since getting a degree many years ago, and so do not offer to participate in editing, other than on its historical metallurgy. I see not reason why Compounds of zinc should not become Chemistry of zinc so that the reactions of the metal can be included. I would discourage duplication between that are articles on individual compounds, which should be linked by a "main" template to the Chemistry or Compounds article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason is to avoid duplication with what group 12 element should contain. Either way, a good deal of fairly focused chemistry should be in a good 'compound of' article. But the emphasis is still going to be the different classes of compounds, how they are made and their properties. But we have not developed a clear set of guidelines on what 'compound of' articles should contain yet (there still may be too much duplication with group articles). --mav (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

group12 elements[edit]

This article has been revised on the basis which I have previously outlined. Here is one example of why the group 12 element article was so poor. The discussion concerning the low melting point of mercury was quite wrong. Relativistic effects don't come into it. Whoever wrote that part apparently knew nothing about metallic bonding. The reason why the melting point is so low is that the forces of attraction between Hg atoms are very weak. These forces arise by sharing of electrons in the conduction band, which extends over the whole of each crystalline domain in solid mercury. The elements either side of Hg have conduction bands involving 5d (Au) or 6p (Tl) orbitals so they have "normal" melting points.

Suitable excerpts of this article can be included in the zinc article. Work on zinc compounds is under way and should be complete some time this coming week. Petergans (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norrby, Lars J. (1991). "Why is mercury liquid? Or, why do relativistic effects not get into chemistry textbooks?". 68 (2): 110–113. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) might be a good reference.--Stone (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course relativistic effects are important for the heavier elements, but they apply to all of them.

m.p. /C
Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po
3045 2443 1769 1064 -38.9 303.5 327 271.4 254

Look at the graph. You can see that Hg stands out as the only exception to regular periodic trend. Therefore the "anomaly" has to do with the specific electronic structure of the element, not with an effect that applies to all elements. See Electronic band structure for details concerning metallic bonding.Petergans (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the article by Norby (pdf). "In Hg, the relativistically contracted 6s orbital is filled and therefore the 6s electrons do not contribute much to the metal-metal bonds." All he is saying is that when proper quantum mechanical calculations are performed the 6s electrons are predominantly localized on individual Hg atoms. In Au the atomic configuration is ..5d96s2 and in Tl 5d106s26p1; both of these elements have a partially filled shell which enables the formation of normal M-M bonds. BTW Norby makes great play of the difference in m.p. between Au and Hg (ca. 1100 C), but looking at the graph above the extrapolated m.p. for Hg would be about 300 C, so the m.p. is only about 400 C below what might have been expected. In short, relativity is a red herring here. Comparing the m.p. of Cd and Hg, the compact nature of the 6s orbital can also be seen as another knock-on effect of the lanthanide contraction as Hg is not much larger than Cd, but carries a much higher nuclear charge. As always, the outermost electrons are poorly shielded from the nuclear charge. Petergans (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work so far at compounds of zinc! Once you are done, I'd like to summarize that and replace the ==Compounds and chemistry== article here. Once that it done, I think all we need to do is expand/improve the lede and do one final copyedit/MOS/ref pass before submitting to FAC. In the meantime, I will be working on the current ChemAID tin. --mav (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds of zinc[edit]

Most of the revision is finished. There is a section to be added on biological applications. This will have a brief general introduction and take material from metalloenzyme, covering carbonic anhydrase and zinc finger in a little more detail concerning the Zn coordination sphere. I hope to be able to do this later this week. Petergans (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision now finished. Please check for typos as I often miss them. The issue about duplication needs to be addressed. Is a summary of a separate article justified? Personally, I would prefer to see the whole contents in the zinc article. I'll leave the decision to you guys. Petergans (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work - thanks Peter! Time to dust off my Greenwod/Earnshaw and Cotton/Wilkinson texts b/c I'd like to see if compounds of zinc can be expanded to become chemistry of group 12. The summaries of chemistry/compounds in each element article can then focus a bit more on the differences from the group's norm. That will avoid a lot of duplication. --mav (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lean more towards keeping the chemistry of each element separate because each article has to stand alone to some extent. To minimize duplication group trends can be restricted to just those matters as I have done in group 12 element. As mentioned before, I would prefer to see the chemistry in the element article and that would remove one level of duplication entirely.
The chemistry of the elements is very badly done in general; for cadmium and mercury it's nothing more than a list and as for gallium (there are others), it's not even mentioned! Petergans (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chemistry of most of the articles have to be improved. My favorite is iron, which has no chemistry section at all. But you are right I would put the chemistry into the elements article and write the comparison in the group or periode article.--Stone (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree about the need to improve the chemistry sections in general for almost all element articles. But as I read more chapters in Greenwood/Earnshaw and Cotton/Wilkinson I notice that trends and sub-trends in chemistry within a group are fairly strong and relatively little material in those texts can only be applied to a single element in each group. Thus my suggestion to keep the chemistry material in each element article as fairly focused summaries that concentrate on differences and have a centralized article discuss most of what Greenwood/Earnshaw, Cotton/Wilkinson and similar texts contain. But I certainly won't do anything in that direction until we all have time to think about the implications and then discuss them. That can wait though. --mav (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelter[edit]

I know that this article has been majorly revamped recently, of which I want to commend all of the editors involved in that, and it looks much better now. I just have one small note: Spelter redirects here, but its definition is in the characteristics section, which seems counter-intuitive to me. Can we include it in the lead, so readers know why they've been redirected here? Wizard191 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"also known as spelter" added to the lede. But that whole section will be rewritten soon enough and a better mention of spelter will be added. Thanks for pointing this out. :) --mav (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there still missing before FAC?[edit]

Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rewritten chemistry section based on compounds of zinc and a re-factored/expanded lede section. I've been working on other articles but will start tomorrow again on this article. Please beat me to starting if you like. --mav (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chemistry and lede sections refactored and expanded. Other than some tinkering, I think we are ready to put this up for FAC. What does everybody think? --mav (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chemistry section is unsatisfactory in regard to the similarity with magnesium. This is fortuitous, resulting from the the similarity in ionic radii and only applies where ionic radius is the determining factor. The true nature of zinc is as a post-transition metal and this shows up in its complex chemistry which is quite different from that of Mg. I'm too busy (meeting other deadlines) for at least 4 weeks to do any edits. Petergans (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make this more clear in the article and borrowed your 'determining factor' caveat. Please take a look but I'm going to ask the other major editors of the article if this is ready for FAC. If they agree, then please leave your feedback on the FAC page. Thanks! :) --mav (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will help at the FAC. Till wendsday I am on a slow line but then ... --Stone (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - I'm working on a last few minor things and will submit to FAC. --mav (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now at FAC. --mav (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopes[edit]

Whose brilliant idea was it to write Zn-64 instead of 64Zn etc.?

"Zn-64 and Zn-70 are considered stable because their half-lifes are over 4.3×1018 and 1.3×1016 years" contradicts the contents of the isotope table. Petergans (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biological role[edit]

This review gives an overview that zinc is necessary for plants although only a few enzymes are known to incorporate zinc. Zinc deficency has a strong influence on enzym activity chloroplast development, nucleic acid and protein content of the plants.
This article discribes the effects of ziinc deficency on humans. The head lines are: Immune system, Anorexia nervosa, Reproduction, Pregnancy, Lactation and infants. It also give the number of over 200 enzymes with zinc as cofactor. It states also that zinc deficency has two major causes: Several metabolism syndroms which interfere with the zinc metabolism and the second is a deficence of zinc in the food.
This article is a good review on the zinc deficency round the world and the first discovery in Iranian and Egyptian "dwarfs".
Gives sources for the high zinc content of sperm of several mamals.

This are the reviews I found for the first look.--Stone (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the help. I think we might have zinc pretty well-covered with the current refs once they're fleshed out more, but I'll try looking again. I noticed that one of the articles I added said 300 cofactors and 100 enzymes; not sure which one it is. In regard to your comment on the talk page, I don't really understand why the coauthor thing is important. I just use Diberri's tool, which is pretty handy and standard. As far as citing things in the lead, I know there's a philosophy which wants to outright avoid those, but I don't necessarily agree and I'd like to discuss it. I think all of the articles I added to the lead were freely-available, and some were cited for some major claims, e.g. 2 billion people are zinc-deficient. I'd rather have those citations up there so a curious reader doesn't have to hunt to find out where that claim comes from. II | (t - c) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coauthor thing is not important, I like it to be the same all over the article, but if they are created by a script it is fine. The Wikipedia:LEADCITE#Citations makes it a little bit clear why to avoide the cites in the lead. Normally the FAC reviewrs will ask why the facts in the lead need references.--Stone (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEADCITE#Citations makes it clear that this is basically up to editorial judgment. I'll admit that I may have went overboard on biology stuff. Ideally I would like to see the very best and broadest accessible sources cited in the lead so that they are advertised to the reader. That would mean perhaps a review source on its history, global distribution of its ore, its industrial applications, and its biological role. Currently most of this information is in books. If that's necessary, then so be it, but I'm skeptical. There are journals covering these topics and there are also good free reports e.g. the USGS reports. II | (t - c) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing an article here for future reference:

  • Designer zinc-finger proteins and their applications. Paywalled, but I have access. Interestingly discusses zing fingers application in biotechnology. Mentions they've been discovered in prokaryotes. Incidentally, Sugarman mentions "viral metalloenzymes", which makes me wonder if that means they occur in viruses. II | (t - c) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though not an expert, my guess is that citations in the lead are OK, as long as they also appear later in the text. I cannot see note 4 there. Care needs to be taken that this article does not become overloaded. It is often useful to very detailed issues to be kept out of the main article, and to appear in a separate one linked by a "main" template. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seng[edit]

[5] shows that the addition by User:Ld. Ata might be a word by word quote. We should make this clear. Or change the sentence.--Stone (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the NFPA Label[edit]

Maybe somebody should add the NFPA fire diamond somewhere in the toxicity section. The fire diamond also appeared on the iron article[4], so maybe someone should add it to this article too.

References

  1. ^ R. O. Roberts, 'Dr John Lane and the foundation of the non-ferrous metal industry in the Swansea valley' Gower 4 (1951), 19–24; F. V. Emery, 'Further light on Dr John Lane' Gower 20 (1969), 8–13; R. O. Roberts, 'Further note on Dr John Lane' Gower 22 (1972), 23-5.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Emsley2001p502 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Gil, Fernando, Pla, Antonio, Hernández, Antonio F., Mercado, Juan M. and Méndez, Fernando(2008)'A fatal case following exposure to zinc chloride and hexachloroethane from a smoke bomb in a fire simulation at a school',Clinical Toxicology,46:6,563 — 565 doi:10.1080/15563650701610890
  4. ^ "Iron", Wikipedia, 2018-05-19, retrieved 2018-06-30

COVID-19[edit]

This is the key element in fighting off COVID. Perhaps mention should be clearly made here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

According to who?

Citing pages[edit]

Aug 8, 2022, 15:01 - «‎Mining and processing: Use the {{rp}} template for this; making refs in comments makes no sense»

There is a dedicated template that can be used to make references to the page: {{rp}} and {{r}}. I propose to relace the references to pages made by comments by the said templates. Checkout the diff linked above (date) for example. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That edit looks great to me, I don't see any reason not to fix it to match standard usage per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerebral726: Thanks for letting me know about that WP:OPCIT guideline. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zinc/Archive_2&oldid=1204052487"