Talk:Phosphorus

Oxidation States

Phosphorus can assume more oxidation states than as presented in the sidebar. +/- 1 should be included as mentioned here: [1]

Also, any chemist would know that the elemental form of an element has an oxidation state of zero. This is usually included first.

WikiProject Elements

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:31, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 04:14, 16 Jun 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Phosphorus. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org).

Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Netscape 4.7 problem

Something about this page totally blows up in Netscape 4.7x. The side bar occupies the entire screen for some reason. - Dwmyers

Phosphor redirect

Is there some special reason for redirecting phosphor to this page? If not I will change it, as in modern usage phosphors have little to do with phosphorus --Roger 12:40 UTC, 1 Sep 2003

Phosphate esters

Phosphate esters are nerve poisons

Would someone care to expand/explain that (or provide a WikiLink). IIRC, DNA contains phosphate esters, and I doubt it is a nerve poison. 128.104.118.80 15:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Phosphorus (morning star)

The element Phosphorus is one of the most typical things someone might look up in a dictionary, whereas the Greek name for a star is one of the most obscure. It is general practice to place non-significant disambiguation notices at the bottom of pages, rather than at the top where it is the first thing someone would see, due to that fact that it is unlikely in the extreme that someone looking for the obscure entry would not expect that the item they are looking for would be a mere footnote -- both figuratively and literally -- in the article in question. And by the way, the only articles that link to Phosphorus (morning star) are, in fact, Phosphorus and morning star.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, but that's besides the point.

I agree: the element phosphorus is bound to be looked up more often than Phosphorus meaning Venus and so that article should take priority (in terms of where the user is taken when they search). However, Wikipedia is not designed to be used purely by Wikipedia editors or those clued up with its conventions (nor those willing to take the time to discover them), but by anybody who wants quick and helpful access to a topic. Is such a person likely to expect to find a footnote at the bottom of the element article - I certainly don't think so. I would have thought such a person would give up at that point and look elsewhere. I don't think such a person would expect the topic they're searching for to be a footnote to something entirely different. However, if the 'dab' (is that an official term?) is at the top of this article, this certainly isn't a problem.

I think it's poor practice - even if it is a general practice - to place disambiguation notices (I don't see why their 'significance' is a factor; either they're so insignificant they don't merit an article, or they do and hence shouldn't be hidden away) at the bottom of articles, since this makes the task of the user so much harder, whereas surely an encyclopedia should strive to make access to information as easy as possible.

How relevant the links to the page are I'm unsure: I would have thought many people access information by entering search terms, rather than coming from a different page, and so will not have the clarification of the article's name you seem to imply.

--Owen&rob 22:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poisonous

Can someone explain to me how 50mg = fatal dose if the recommended daily allowence = 800mg? [2] I assume I'm missing something... fabiform | talk 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the toxicity depends on the chemical form (e.g., orthophosphate vs. white phosphorus). The 50mg statement really needs to be qualified. P.Riis 16:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I'll leave it to a chemist to fix the article. :) fabiform | talk 19:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

50 mg is the minimal oral lethal dose for man, of white phosphorus (the P₄ allotrope); the phosphorus in food and organism is in form of phosphate (P⁵⁺, such as (PO₄)^3-).--84.163.116.7 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the 4th Allotrope?

"Phosphorus exists in four allotropic forms: white (or yellow), red, and black (or violet)." I make that 3. Can anyone explain please? --Dumbo1 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Violet phosphorus is different from black phosphorus. Violet phosphorus doesn't conduct electricity while black does. Black phosphorus also exists as different allotropes, orthorhombic i think is one, and amorphous.

There is possibly also a green allotrope although it is not certain. --Kyp 10:41 4 july 2007

Paragraph on isotopes

The paragraph about Phosphorus' isotopes looks a 'bit' inappropriate to me:

Isotopes

The springfield isotopes are the best baseball team in america, and are named the isotopes due to the nuclear power plant being in controll of them. Isotopes of phosphorus include cheesecakes and fuel economy. Also, jesse mcartney is gay and his music is pathetic.

I don't want to touch it myself since I know nothing of the subject.

--Graniitti 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

In case of obvious recent vandalism simply look through the history and revert to an earlier good version. (done that) Femto 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

extraction of the allotropes.

i'm a lil' confused. there was a question in one of our papers saying- "HOW DO YOU SEPARATE YELLOW PHOSPHORUS FROM RED PHOSPHORUS?"

Please sign your name.

You don't separate them; white (yellow if you prefer) is converted into red. I've started to discuss the industrial processes in the Albright and Wilson article, but its far from completed yet.Pyrotec 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're trying to ask how to separate a mixture of the two or how phosphorus is produced. White phosphorus is made by heating phosphates with carbon and then this can be converted to red phosphorus. If you had a mixture of the two and wanted to separate them, you could expose it to air or oxygen and the white (yellow) phosphorus would oxidize to form phosphorus pentoxide. If this mixture was then washed with water, the P₄O₁₀ would dissolve leaving you with red phosphorus. You could also try solvent extraction if you wanted to leave the white phosphorus intact. The two allotropes should have different solubilities in most solvents.--24.16.148.75 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Smoking stool syndrome

Re: citation needed - Incredibly, looks credible. There's Simon FA, Pickering LK. Acute yellow phosphorus poisoning: smoking stool syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 235 No. 13, March 29, 1976 - Anybody got access, and expand a bit on the facts please? Femto 12:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yellow phosphorus

the stub lacks any mention of yellow phosphorus - this is a very blatant omission

Please sign your name. Anyway your statement is not true: white phosphorus and yellow phosphorus are the same. Pyrotec 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a comment about white and yellow phosphorous being the same to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.235.10 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2007

Notable Characteristics

The first part of this section discusses only the properties of white phosphorus, but refers to it as "common phosphorus." This seems confusing. Any ideas on how to fix it?--24.16.148.75 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers! We need numbers!

Global demand for fertilizers led to large increases in phosphate (PO43-) production in the second half of the 20th century.

Today phosphorus production is larger than ever

Such statements are, unfortunately, fairly useless without giving estimates for the production and use of phosphorus. That production is "larger than ever" isn't a surprise, considering the population of the world today. Did phosphorus production grow faster than that? Faster than real GDP?

RandomP 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation about white phosphorus

In article, it is stated, that:

"White phosphorus glows in the dark and is highly explosive..."

that is not true; P₄ is highly flammable, and self-igniting upon contact with air (pyrophoric), but not explosive, unless intimately mixed with a strong oxidizing agent (such as solid chlorate, nitrate or permanganate). Thus, I change the sentence as follows:

"White phosphorus glows in the dark, is highly flammable and pyroforic (self-igniting) upon contact with air..."--84.163.116.7 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

occurence of phosphorus

At the shores of the baltic sea white phosphorous can be found. It is some times mistaken for amber and ignites in the pockets of the people collecting it. A big amount 40% of all phosphorous bombs for the rocket factory in Penemünde was thrown into the baltic sea as dubs in the big attack 1943. Is it worth mentioning? [3] [4] --Stone 15:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Phosphorous metal?

Phosphorus is a nonmetal. Some sources however talk of "phosphorous metal"...

e.g. "a flame retardant that contains phosphorus metal" (in an e-mail I got)

or: "Reade Advanced Materials offers: Phosphorus Metal (Never found in nature)" http://www.reade.com/Products/Elements/phosphorus.html (I'm not trying to promote this site)

or: "There is no restriction on the metal contained in the inorganic solid powder. It may be, for example, Mg, Al, P, ..." http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5013782-description.html

I unsuccessfully turned to wikipedia to find further information on this. I suspect it is probably just sloppy nomenclature and some of the known, non-metallic P allotropes is meant. Or they mean lumps of P, not powder? Or they talk about alloys containing P. If I am wrong, and none of this is meant, maybe someone more knowledgeable could add some explanation in the article. --83.77.179.101 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right Phosphorus is a non-metal. The cause of these errors is sloppy editing in your published examples. The flame retardant is a phosphorous salt; elemental phosphorus is never found in nature; sloppy patent writing: the following paragraphs in the patent talk about metals or metal oxides and specific examples of several phosphates are given - elemental phosphorus is unlikely to provide the desired effects.Pyrotec 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Most such references really mean "elemental phosphorus" which is the usual term. I just tried some Google searches and found 519 hits for "phosphorus metal", 714 for "metallic phosphorus", and 63 400 for "elemental phosphorus". However Hittorf's red-violet phosphorus was initially described (in 1865) as "metallic". http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/phos/index.html As modern textbooks describe it simply as red (or violet), I presume it is actually non-conducting. Dirac66 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Which variety of spelling is this article supposed to be in? At the moment it contains elements (no pun intended!) of both, which is clearly unsatisfactory. --John 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As a week has gone by without anyone expressing an interest, and based on this version, I deem that this article was originally written in British English and I will edit the current article to conform to that. --John 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also regard it as British English - all my edits in 2006 & 2007 were in British English.Pyrotec (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of phosphorus is not covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines, but probably should be. I believe the IUPAC standard is phosphorus. Note that the term, phosphorOus refers to acid of the phosphite ion (that is, phosphorous acid), and is a distinct meaning from the elemental name. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was an old thread, I misread the diffs. This conversation did not refer to the name, which is phosphorus, but the spelling of certain words in the article, e.g. odor or odour, fertilizer or fertiliser. We went for the British versions not the US versions, as the article was original written in UK English.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the spelling, "phosphorous," does occur several times in the article. While you are editing to adopt the British spellings, it would be good to fix this as well. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found three occurances, but this one: "At today's rate of consumption, the supply of phosphorous is estimated to run out in 345 years.[12]" appears to be the only incorrect spelling - now being changed.Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

phosphorus is never found as a free element in nature?

The second paragraph of the article states that phosphorus is never found as a free element in nature. This is not quite correct, because P can be present in some regions of the universe in atomic or ionized form, i.e., in regions of warm (T~10e4 K) gas associated with star-formation and also with active galactic nuclei. I suggest that the original statement be qualified in some way.

Another suggestion would be to include somewhere, perhaps in the information bos on the right hand side of the article, a mention of the abundance of P on earth and in the solar system. The solar system abundance of P is actually what I came to this page searching for.

AJH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.27.91 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)