![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
I think the term "substituted phosphine" in the beginning paragraph should be "substituted phosphane". i did not attempt to edit the article since i am not sufficiently certain of this to risk misleading anybody. thanks
I am trying to find out if Phosphine is corrosive to PVC. We have an application to run Coaxial cables down a tunnel below a grain Silo where Phosphine is regularly used as a fumigant. Can Anybody help?
FYI - Phosphine is only corrosive to metals.
Yes phosphine is corrosive to both metals as well as plastics. Howevr, one may avoid its corrosion to plastics for which PH3 may prove dangerous and set fire in the presence of moisture. Hence, minimizing moisture may result in least damage to plastics. Muhammad Shoaib Ahmedani, (Ph.D.) Entomology, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
PH3 is corrosive to metals and to a lesser degree platics. If you are running Coaxial through the bottom of a bin that is regularly fumigated with PH3, is the coaxial sealed airtight within the PVC? If not, you may have corrosion!
Is the word "complex" appropriate in the following sentence: "They are important in catalysts where they complex to various metal ions;"? 63.215.29.233 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
' Yes. Complex, as in the article : Coordination_complex. 188.126.83.6 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be appropriate for an article about a chemical, but the series "The Dragon Riders of Pern" has many references to phosphine, which enables the dragons to breathe fire.
"Inside the beasts, acids churned and the poisonous phosphines were readied. When the dragons belched forth the gas, it would ignite in the air into ravening flame"
John Saunders (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that phosphine has mutagenic and carcinogenic properties, which is not addressed at all in the Safety section of the article.80.240.162.190 (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the word "hydruyet" in the first paragraph of the history. I am pretty sure it should be hydruret, i.e., with an r instead of a y. The only citations (Google) of the word with a y are quotations of this article or translations of it. Oddly, the French version of this article doesn't mention this early name or, for that matter, anything about Lavoisier. 217.233.85.89 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I speak as a chemist. The usual English expression is "they complex various various metal ions," not "complex to various...." Alternatively, "they form complexes with various...." 217.233.85.89 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to discover who coined the term "phosphine". So far, it appears that the German-British chemist August Wilhelm von Hofmann was responsible. In 1857, he published a paper announcing the synthesis of organic compounds containing phosphorus, which he named "trimethylphosphine" and "triethylphosphine".
(The French chemist Paul Thénard had prepared such compounds in the 1840s, but the process was dangerous and fraught with difficulties, whereas Hofmann's syntheses were not.)
Neither Thénard nor anyone else before Hofmann had used the term "phosphine". Hofmann coined the term "phosphine" in analogy with "amine" (organo-nitrogen compounds), "arsine" (organo-arsenic compounds), and "stibine" (organo-antimony compounds). See: A.W. Hofmann and Auguste Cahours (1857) "Researches on the phosphorus bases," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 8 : 523-527. From page 524: "The bases Me3P and E3P, the products of this reaction, which we propose to call respectively trimethylphosphine and triethylphosphine, … "
Until then (and afterwards), PH3 was called "phosphoretted hydrogen" — even Hofmann uses the term in his 1857 paper — however, by 1870, Prof. William Odling was calling it "phosphine" in his text Outlines of Chemistry; or, Brief Notes of Chemical Facts ; see p. 78.
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, the word "phosphine" appeared as early as 1865. (It may have been coined even earlier.)
In 1865, Prof. William Odling was calling PH3 "phosphine":
In 1865, Henry Watts called PH3 "phosphamine", but by 1866, he was calling it "phosphine":
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the name of NaPH2? Sodium dihydrophosphide? Is sodium phosphanide OK? --Leiem (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence starting: "Though the Vega mission probe found" is lacking an alternative. It would be like writing: 'Though John went to town' -- though what? Wmsears (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently writes:
The first citation is to Krasnopolsky 1989, Vega mission results and chemical composition of Venusian clouds, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90168-1.
The recent Greaves et al 2020 Phosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus, doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1174-4, cites this same paper but has a very different interpretation of it, and then explicitly addresses the phosphorous acid pathway:
The supplementary information notes that P4O6 is one of the sources modelled and found to be insufficient.
So I'm a bit confused as to what this paragraph is trying to say. It seems to be saying "there is another pathway", but it's for a chemical that's already been addressed by the recent study, and relies on a different reading of the same underlying source to say that chemical is there in the first place. Should we add more caveats/context? Should we remove this entirely? Andrew Gray (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/venus-might-host-life-new-discovery-suggests/ Charles Juvon (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2020, no known abiotic process generates phosphine gas on terrestrial planets in appreciable quantities, so detectable amounts of phosphine could indicate life.[19][20][21]
Not true. Coal fires:
Kruszewski, Ł., Fabiańska, M.J., Segit, T., Kusy, D., Motyliński, R., Ciesielczuk, J., Deput, E., 2020. Carbon-nitrogen compounds, alcohols, mercaptans, monoterpenes, acetates, aldehydes, ketones, SF6, PH3, and other fire gases in coal-mining waste heaps of Upper Silesian Coal Basin (Poland) – a re-investigation by means of in-situ FTIR extrernal database approach. Sci. Total Env., 698, 134274, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134274 Eudialytos (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eudialytos and Veggies: and others - FWIW - added the following to help clarify the text somewhat => More particularly, according to the original study: "Phosphine is a promising biosignature gas, as it has no known abiotic false positives on terrestrial planets from any source that could generate the high fluxes required for detection."[1][2][3] - hope this helps - at least for starters - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |publicationdate=
ignored (|publication-date=
suggested) (help)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Phosphine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Thompson2020":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm just kind of really confused as to whether phosphineorphosphane is considered the "correct" name. According to this article, the latter is the official international name according to the IUPAC, but both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries only include the former name. Maybe it's not all that significant, but from what I can tell, this hasn't really been discussed before. I just noticed that Wikipedia tends to follow internationally standard spellings for similar subjects when available (see metre, aluminium, and sulfur), and as you can tell from the last of those titles, that doesn't inherently mean British English (Oxford Dictionary seems to prefer "sulphur"). Really, I'm just curious as to why this article seems to prefer "phosphine", despite establishing that the international standard is "phosphane", and didn't see any prior discussions either way. I get that, according to OED and MW as mentioned before, English in general seems to prefer "phosphine" and neither dictionary lists "phosphane" at all. Is that the reason? As I said, I'm really just curious about the reasoning either way. -136.56.31.46 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phosphine's bright flame is famously keen
And phosphane's a name that's nearly unseen
But IUPAC's own game
Has taken its aim
So sometimes they seem just the same.