Talk:Oxygen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Oxygen molecule image

Oxygen discharge (spectrum) tube

Oxygen O₂ molecule.

I have replaced the oxygen discharge type image with an image of the oxygen molecule. If someone finds a good place for the discharge tube image, please place it there. Ulflund (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Make this article.....

Make it simpler and more understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by YohohoTheBest (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to tell us where you live, what your primary language is, how many years of education you have (what year in school you are). WP articles on things like elements are aimed about about the level of U.S. high school seniors or high school graduate (no college required). SBHarris 20:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

i would change the following sentence: "two atoms of the element bind to form dioxygen, a very pale blue, odorless, tasteless diatomic gas with the formula O2". oxygen gas is clear and colorless; it is only pale blue when it s a liquid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiramnes (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

incomplete info.....

Info on isotopes is missing (i.e., exact masses, including mass defects). This info would be of particular interest to chemists, physicists, and the field of mass spectrometry. Dha250 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you try clicking on the link saying "Main article: Isotopes of oxygen" right after the section header and the infobox isotopes header? That page gives the exact masses. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ubiquitous O compounds

Oxygen is the most abundant element by mass in the crust, the oceans, and of course us. And second most common in most materials around us. Unless you live in a metal house, wear BN ceramics, and got diamonds on the soles of your shoes, etc., that's true. I tried to get something to that effect into the lead. I think oxygen is so common that it's easier to describe common things that don't contain O than those that do. It's so common I can't summarize except to say that. Some editor disagreed and reverted me. Okay, so let's see you do better. SBHarris 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013

In the 'Safety and precautions' section, please change this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa (equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure)."

to this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, or 2.5 times the normal sea-level oxygen partial pressure which is about 21 kPa."

This will clarify the sentence. The current phasing implies that 21 kPA is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, but actually it should say that 50 kPa is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure. Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reatlas (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discovery

29-07-2013 The article gives preference to the independant American discoverer of Oxygen in spite of the fact the English discoverer of Oxygen published it first. This should be changed by an edit expert to credit the English discoverer Priestley first in the sentence. The author of this article has not paid due respect to that, and somehow is insinuating the discovery ought to be awarded to the American by putting his name first in the sentence when it should be printed second or actually - if at all. Does Wikipedia want to maintain credibility or allow the article authors to perpertrate bias and bend the truth of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What American? Scheele was Swedish. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He was Pomeranian. He spoke Swedish, but only when not yapping. SBHarris 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of reference

I've removed the reference used after "for example, about two-thirds of human body mass" in the articles lead section. The reference doesn't specify the fact it is used for, and seems to be of a questionable quality for a FA lead. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

solubility

"Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is; water contains approximately 1 molecule of O2 for every 2 molecules of N2, compared to an atmospheric ratio of approximately 1:4. The solubility of oxygen in water is temperature-dependent, and about twice as much (14.6 mg·L−1) dissolves at 0 °C than at 20 °C (7.6 mg·L−1)."

Error here (can't edit b/c new user): the 7.6 mg-L-1 solubility is at 30ºC, NOT at 20ºC (source: http://www.ysi.com/media/pdfs/DO-Oxygen-Solubility-Table.pdf and many other easily available sources on google). Someone please correct this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.175.26 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This section appears to me to be contradictory and confusing. If there are 2 molecules of dissolved nitrogen in water, compared to 1 molecule of oxygen, then isn't nitrogen more soluble than oxygen ? If the key point here is that there are 4 nitrogen molecules in the air for each 1 molecule of oxygen in the air, then how does the solubility depend on this ; the unit being given for the solubility does not indicate this.Eregli bob (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes its is confusing. The first statement appears to be showing that the dissolved oxygen-nitrogen ratio (mol/mol) in water is relatively more oxygen-rich than the equivalent oxygen-nitrogen ratio in air, but in both cases there is more nitrogen. The second is about the inverse temperature relationship of the (satuarated) dissolved oxygen concentration (mg·L−1) in water. I think it may be necessary to go back to the source (Emsley) to see what is being claimed there. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't THAT confusing. Gas solubilities are related to partial pressures. If nitrogen's partial pressure is 4 times that of oxygen in air (which it is), if they had the same solubility, they would present in a 4:1 ratio of molar content dissolved in water, as well. But they aren't-- it's down to 2:1, which indicates that oxygen is twice as soluble as nitrogen in water. The second paragraph only has to do with the temperature-sensitivity of oxygen's solubility, and ignores nitrogen (as it should, since these are more or less independent things, and the presense or absense of nitrogen has almost nothing to do with how much oxygen dissolves in water).SBHarris 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

merge Activated Oxygen into ozone?

Should we merge the new article Activated Oxygen into the ozone article?--Stone (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Vgnsh20011 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can a gase be tasteless?

In my work I once wrote that oxygen, as a simple substance, is a tasteless gase. All the university laughed at that thing. But the English Wiki does state the same that I said. Does it have any sense that a gase can be tasteless or have taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.96.128 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlorine and other halogen gases have nasty tastes, and all gases that turn into acids (HCl) taste very sour. Of course oxygen and nitrogen are tasteless. Can you taste pure air? SBHarris 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edited the molecular structure description

… of dioxygen to be consistent with standard descriptions from high quality US and EU university texts [specifically citing the molecular orbital (MO) diagram and description of Barrett], providing this standard MO description, a nearly precisely corresponding MO diagram from wikimedia commons, removing the unnecessary Purdue genchem coursework citation, calling for a good, solid, secondary chem source for the triplet description, and providing a better preliminary description of the Pauling model and source.

If you are going to edit/change this, do so only if you have source in hand, and it is a solid text or secondary chem source, and as clearly draw your information from your source as did from mine. The earlier vague description and unreliable sourcing cannot remain here; it is just unrepresentative of the status of this field and information, and overall sub-par chemical description and sourcing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving images around so the appearance of the article is more acceptable; please hold. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I made the article presentable after the mol structure edit, by moving images: moving the liq O2 image to the article section on liq O2, moving the space-filling O2 to the infobox (which requires that the whole info box markup language appear, until other editing is done), and then moving the paramagnetism trickle image to left side.

The discharge image is moved here, because there is no explanatory text for it in the article (at all, and so no context to place it):

Blue white greenish glow from an oxygen discharge tube.

please reintroduce this image when it has a proper encyclopedic context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am once again moving this intellectually "orphaned"—completely unexplained, heretofore not-even-mentioned—image of the discharge, here to Talk, and again, asking in the Edit summary, and here that it not be returned to the article until its purpose/utility to the explanation of the article subject, oxygen, is clear—i.e., that it remains out, until the image can be integrated, via useful text, into the article. So, please don't revert the edit again, without both an Edit summary explanation or without addressing the matter here: please attend to the substantial issue I raise. Not doing so is disrespectful, wastes time, and does not move the article toward GA status. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: we have in all our element article a "real and true" image from the element in the info-box. Why we need only in oxygen a scheme? A discharge tube show us a physical property, the greenish hue from the oxygen similar or because to the "aurora borealis". This makes oxygen visible and is an important property. So please re-edit the article and put the scheme out from the box in an other place in the article! Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The ball scheme is not the essential element image (nor is the electron config scheme, for example). We expect it in the appropriate section. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Replaced the space-filling model of O₂ in the infobox with the liquid oxygen image, as that requires much less context than the oxygen discharge tube image. Note that this is for consistency with all the other element articles, which use a picture of the element in the infobox, as opposed to a structure. Perhaps a solution would be to just include two pictures in every element infobox: one would be a picture of the element, and one would be a representation of the structure of the most common allotrope(s)? Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually allotropes are in picture #1 already (as in tin). Does a structure image not overlap the crystal structure image, as content? And if not, would that not be a better area to have the allotrope images (ie, near the crystal image in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a chem Prof, and interested in pedagogy—accuracy of material, and the value of any given set of statements in advancing student (reader) understanding. I have no interest whatsoever in maintaining paradigms simply for sake of doing so. FIrst, there is no "our" at wikipedia; that is, there is no "in all our element articles". What should happen in any given article is what is best for understanding of the title subject. Second, at STP, the chemical element in question is something that cannot be seen, and hence the form of O₂ that is most familiar to the readership (invisible gaseous dioxygen) is poorly represented by the lede (infobox) image. That is to say, opening the article with a O₂(l) image is just as abstract, but less meaningful, than opening it with a space-filling representation of the homonuclear diatomic. (Caveat, the image legends here are substandard, and so more needs to be done with the graphics legend than is currently done.) Third, extending your logic, images of compounds such as sucrose and penicillin should appear as piles of near-to-indistinguishable white powder, because that is an "image from [sic.] the element" compound. Nonsense. What all others do, and have done is immaterial. The question is, what is best as an explanation of the material being presented. A molecular formula is more meaningful in these latter cases than piles of white powder; an image of a homonuclear diatomic (properly explained in legend) is more meaningful than a misplaced test-tube of liquid that is (trust us) gaseous dioxygen, condensed and collected. Fourth, pedagogically, it is simply silly to suggest that the image of the O₂(l) is more useful and informative where it is now placed, than lower, near the Physical properties subsection; that is to say, per your edit, the O₂(l) image is now misplaced with regard to best teaching of this material. FIfth, any argument that presentation of the space-filling representation of O₂ is best placed where it is, now—after the infobox, as the third image, even after ozone—is similarly pedagogically specious. Sixth, the redesign needed to put such a limited value O₂(l) image first, rather than where it best explains and informs its concepts, had as a result the lengthening of the infobox. This edit, this revert putting O₂(l) back into the infobox necessitated moving the MO diagram to left side of article, further mucking the article about; what was a reasonably professional appearance for an article opening (in this professional's opinion), is no longer. Seventh and finally, there has been no firm objection to including the discharge image, just an objection to including it without any article textual content related to it.

The fact that some editors appear to believe that this decision-making logic is acceptable—that teaching chemistry is about superficial visual experiences unrelated to deep understanding, so that the hard thinking and work required to stimulate deep understanding is not required—this editorial philosophy goes a long way to explaining why it's more important to be consistent to an artificial, fundamentally illogical infobox standard set by "Lor' knows who" —rather than to think independently and create a unique article opening that is best for a complete novice student to begin to understand oxygen chemistry. I can only imagine that there are not many combined years of broad teaching experience yet, on your side of this debate.

Regardless, I will not revert you. (You should mull over this, be persuaded, and change the article back, despite it flying in the face of an anonymous, pedagogically weak infobox image precedent.) But just know, by any objective standard, regardless of what consensus you muster, the article opening is not better, but worse for the changes. So do as you wish, I will not fight further about this. And feel free to add the discharge image. I look forward to its textual integration into the teaching of the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I'm a chemical engineer with diploma, also interested in "real-life" pedagogy and an owner of a privacy museum for the elements. Your "red" bulb oxygen molecule is more distracting than a discharge tube or the liquid-blue oxygen. Why red, why the puzzling thick bulbs? Why is the sky blue? Why is the aurora borealis in the main green? How we can show an invisible things visible? Why are the colorless gas neon is red? Believe me all my visitors are enthusiastic to see the luminous light of the oxygen discharge tube and see the true blue color of the pure liquid oxygen. Now all my visitors understand the blue color of our atmosphere ... Please think about this too! Real-life is more important than only a dry curriculum! Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Alchemist-hp: The space filling image is not mine, and I do not state that it is perfect, simply far preferable to the obfuscating reversions. I have no doubt you have experience in your area, but not sufficient in this one, surely: the "puzzling thick bulbs" are a standard, meaningful space-filling model of elemental oxygen as found at STP, where its meaning derives from the scale of the "bulbs" as a representation of approximate van der Waal radii as an indicator of the approximate dispersity of the molecule's valennce electron cloud (see the SFM article, and [1] for more information, and [2] for the experimental basis for space-filling representations). As for the "[w]hy red," you again convey naivete regarding the modern teaching of chemistry: while I did not create this image, I can say most assuredly that it was given the red color because this is the most common colour given to oxygen atoms based on modern molecular graphics representations, e.g., see CPK coloring, alongside blue for nitrogen, black for carbon, etc. You are free to teach as creatively and [literally] unconventionally as you wish at your "priva[te] museum of the elements," but I ask here that you honour standard conventions and encyclopedic advice, and revert the stylistic, creative, and non-standard thrusts that you have introduced, and return the article to where it was (with liquid oxygen, whose colour is immaterial to the color of the sky, back to the section on liquid oxygen, and the standard colour and representation of oxygen to the infobox), before you reverted my thoughtful, professorially informed work without discussion. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote: "Regardless, I will not revert you.", then do it please. Thanks. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

re Leprof 7272, about the opening image (infobox picture). I will respond to some minor and major issues.

#0 It is "our" wikipedia all right. That includes you, and is an acceptable way of speech. This is not a courthouse about private property.

#2Caveat, the image legends ...- picked up, addressed and edited. See #below.

#3 extending your logic, ... nonsense. As you conclude. I note that it is you who does extending the logic into what we both find nonsense. As for the intention: compounds and elements do not need to be treated the same. An element is still an element at atomic level. Molecules are not per se. A structure showing in a compound article is very to the point IMO, as is the elements appearance in an elements article. Adding those images of compounds, you can propose at WT:CHEMICALS for example. You might meet me there saying it's not a good idea for compounds.

pedagogically; teaching you write. In general those are a useful guide to find article requirements, but as it is used here it is overused and overweighed. Because, an encyclopedia is there to describe it, not to teach it. Whenever pedagogical/teaching needs would cross with descriptive requirements, the teacher looses. This reads like a conflicting situation to show the point; but usually these needs flow together nicely. In other words: to teach about oxygen, a teacher indeed might choose for good reasons to start with another image. However, to describe oxygen, we can start with a picture that says "This is oxygen".

You post that the molecule is the point to start introducing oxygen. I disagree. Oxygen in a compound is still the element oxygen. Also, molecules are just the chemical part of stuff. Elements are just as well a physical matter. For example, it's isotopes must be described as well, but again not in the opening text/image. Promoting the chemicals to the top-level would be undue weight for that aspect.

If you try to pursue the claim 'we can not see it in our world, so we must use a schema illustration' (my rewording), that is not that convincing. The current picture already is an alternative solution. (By the way, when you teach, introducing oxygen, what do you tell first: that it's a gas, so not liquid or solid in nat.state or that it's diatomic molecules?).

I skip the more impressionist arguments like "an artificial, fundamentally illogical infobox" - difficult to argue with. I'd like to learn how we can improve the infobox, but that is not in there. As for "standard set by "Lor' knows who" " - well, the standard was set by us. that is: including you.

To conclude, quite simple, article "oxygen" best open with an image that says: "this is oxygen". To make sense with the image, it is OK to have different state values (explained nicely). When you open with an image "spacefilling (ball) scheme of oxygen molecule", there are already three abstractions in the opening. And, of course, all this and more can be in specialized sections. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This matter and your arguing of it is so much nonsense. Your presentation of liquid oxygen is a presentation of a chosen molecule of it, and not a focus on the element. You can comment snidely on the expression "artificial, fundamentally illogical info box", but I have made this argument and case at the Template Talk page for these info boxes, and illogical it is (arbitrarily showing forms at STP for most elements, but esoteric solid and liquid forms for others, on the apparent basis of particular editor perceptions of image attractiveness). So, pour scorn on it all you will, the argument is based on reason and chemistry, and not image prettiness. FInally, at issue is whether it is more abstract to present a model of the diatomic nature of the gas, or a picture of state of the element that no reader will ever see. Your and your cooperating editorial cohort's abilities (a) understand this, and (b) argue contrary to it, by communicating a depth of chemical understanding in clear academic English, are limited. I have nothing further to say, or argue with you on the matter. Enjoy your article. It certainly pleases the two of you, even if it is largely useless in any real academic context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Caption of the infobox image

As Leprof 7272 made me notice, I think the infobox image caption needs improvement:

(Current caption):

Liquid oxygen, oxygen bubbles

For example, the word "bubbles" is right for the alt-text, because that is what you see in the picture. But the caption should describe what it is (see WP:EIS: alt & caption).

I think these text elements are to be considered:

• "oxygen", "liquid"
• "at T, P"
• 'boiling"

Negative: "bubbles"

Now the non-S T, P are unknown for this picture (maybe available in its source?). And the 'bubbles' are boiling oxygen, am I right? The LOX article says:

boiling point of 90.19 K (−297.33 °F, −182.96 °C) at 101.325 kPa (760 mmHg).

However, this is the lede picture, so I don't think the caption needs to be this precise & complete. b.p. is specified below in the infobox. OTOH, as a reader semi-unfamiliar with this topic, I surely would like to have the bubbles described/mentioned/explained. The other bubbles I ever saw were in boiling water and gaseous refreshers. (so, these bubbles, are they steam or CO₂?, the reader asks). From all this I propose a more summary caption:

(proposal A):

Liquid oxygen, boiling (oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F), at 101.325 kPa)

Any alternatives or remarks? -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: your proposal A is better and perfect for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal A is fine with me. Might we want to state that the bubbles are of gaseous oxygen, as well? Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Will change it, further improvements not prohibited. Eh, isn't that "gaseous oxygen" said with the "boiling"? Any other simple description? -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done (Proposal A). Further discussion welcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I myself would like to replace the very technical pressure "101.325 kPa" with something simpler (layman-talk). Could use the "ca." wording. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Other idea: write and link only: (at atmospheric pressure) without "101.325 kPa"!? I think that's enough. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I boldly brashly made a change, but thought better of it and so I reverted it.

My idea was (proposal B): Liquid oxygen boiling<br>Oxygen is a liquid below −183 °C (−297 °F) (at atmospheric pressure, 101.325 kPa).

My idea now (proposal C): Liquid oxygen boiling:<br>Oxygen is a liquid below −183 °C (−297 °F) (at atmospheric pressure).

(plus a few &nbsp; and {{nowrap}}) YBG (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd cahnge: at-values in brackets as we do elsewhere. Keep the comma to keep readable text; use ca. for correctness. Write atm press is better, but no need to link unless you want to define it; then we can use atm (as abbr)?).

• (proposal D)

Liquid oxygen, boiling (at atmospheric pressure, oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F))

-DePiep (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer relegating pressure to the end; temp seems a more important focus point. YBG (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• (proposal E)

Liquid oxygen, boiling (oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F), at atm)

•  Done

I made it this (proposal E) into the infobox. My own proposal. I should be wiki-killed for this. OK then, if it is by Good Editors (the problem is, you only get killed by ANI admins). -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Discharge tube prose edited strongly

…for fundamental errors, illegibility of prose, and failure to provide sources. See Edit summary and hidden note in text. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

REVERTED BY DEPIEP. SEE [3], so all errors of Alchemist reintroduced, and properties and molecular structure returned to being admixed/confounded. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you know it better, so correct it simple! I think you as a prof. at a university have enough literature for this work. Only to say "... fundamental errors ..." is counterproductive. I'm in the main a chemistry-photographer with the intention to make images that show us the elements in true, like oxygen in a discharge tube. And ... Wikipedia isn't only for chemistry students, Wikipedia is for ordinary peoples too. Did you ever saw the elements in real life? If not, so you are invited to visit me at my private museum. I'd like to show you the fascinating elements. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I made corrections to your error-filled prose about the discharge tube, and your friend DePiep reverted it, along with changes to the MO section, and edits to the physical property content. I have elevated the matter, so others can address your edits and your friends personal reversion. I have nothing more to say to you about this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph does contain errors and vague statements, and the references do not support any facts except that a discharge might happen in oxygen. I am sure a whole article could be written on the topic, but would be far too excessive for this page. Leprof 7272 was right to draw attention to the problem, but did overtag the issues. One dubious tag was probably enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On my talkpage, Leprof 7272 pointed out that my blanket-revert was overdone (see here). I did agree, and noted that I won't touch the page for a while to prevent uncomfortable editconflicts. Unless asked. -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been no change to anything mentioned above. The paragraph on molecular structure is still united with information on physical properties, and the paragraph describing the discharge tube is still written in poor English. Whatever was reverted on 7 March should be returned. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the discharge tube paragraph with a short summary of molecular oxygen spectroscopy. This seems more appropriate since this is a page on molecular rather than atomic oxygen. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that this article is exclusively about molecular oxygen to the exclusion of atomic oxygen? While each isotope (oxygen-16, -17 and -18), has its own page, this article seems to me to be the obvious place for information about atomic oxygen in general. If I've missed something here, please explain it to me. YBG (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote says "This article is about the chemical element and its most stable form, O₂ or dioxygen." Atomic oxygen is at Allotropes_of_oxygen#Atomic_oxygen. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood your use of the term 'atomic oxygen', which I mistakenly took to mean the chemical element itself, i.e., discussing properties and characteristics of the chemical element that are common to all isotopes and allotropes. Thank you for the clarification. By the way, did you find a more appropriate article in which to insert the paragraph you deleted? YBG (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now re-read this entire thread in context, and I understand that the paragraph deleted may have had significant problems with it. If that is the case, fine; I was reacting to the simple description in the last paragraph that made me think that it was deleted only because it was not on-topic. YBG (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical properties / oxygen solubility

If I check the sources correctly (here: engineeringtoolbox.com) the quoted figures jump between fresh water and salt water without explaining. The text starts with a figure for fresh water at 0 and jumps to give the figure for salt water at 20 °C. Pls check someone who knows chemistry, I am just a theologian who is used to checking sources and read critically.

temperature	0 °C	20 °C	30 °C
Fresh water	14.6 mg/l	9.1 mg/l	7.6 mg/l
Salt water	11.2 mg/l	7.2 mg/l	6.1 mg/l

Kipala (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For such figures there should be a book or study paper cited, not just a private page without references. For instance you could go to Google Scholar, or Google book search or just try basic Google searches for something like "Oxygen solubility" prokaryotes (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I surely will not do it! Not my glass of beer Kipala (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discovery

The information in the article and infobox regarding the discovery of oxygen do not agree; Priestley is not mentioned in the infobox, and the dates for Scheele are different. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For reasons of space the first discoverer is usually the only one mentioned in the infobox. Scheele gets the spot because he found it first, although Priestley was the first to publish his discovery. As for the date, it seems to be not entirely certain, but it was probably discovered around 1772 and was certainly discovered by 1773. (Perhaps we should use "1772?", to show this uncertainty?) Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

For whatever free text description, there is available for the infobox: |history comment label= (LH text), and |history comment=.

I think, encyclopedically "space" is not an argument. More so electronically (unlimited page size + hyperlinks). OTOH, info could be left out because it is not relevant or too detailed. And with your reply, Doublesharp, is that discrepancy solved/disappeared (an explanation on the talkpage does not count). -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discoverer of oxygen is Polish alchemist Michał Sędziwój, who called it "food of life" (lat. Cibus vitae). Sędziwój knew that "the food of life, hidden in the air" is essential to life (humans, animals and plants), and that it passes from air into the blood [1]. Sędziwój received oxygen through the experimental distribution of potassium nitrate during the roasting; his experience he described in his work: "Twelve treaties philosophers stone" (1604). Stated that there is a body of nitrate, containing the "spirit world" (so-called oxygen, recognizing it as the Sorcerer's Stone), enabling the lives of people and animals. So he knew that the gas is a component of the air and is essential to life. Oxygen was discovered by Carl shed again before 1773, but the discovery has not been published in 1777. At that time, the discoverer of oxygen for two years was considered Joseph Priestley, which receives oxygen by heating mercury oxide (II) and collecting the emitted gas.

Currently the 2nd paragraph doesn't mention the countries of the inventors. So I would suggest: Uppsala (sweden) and Wiltshire (UK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.237.61 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

[1] Maciej Iłowiecki: History of the Polish science. Warsaw: Publishing House "Interpress", 1981, p. 55. ISBN 83-223-1876-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.242.53 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How much oxygen do we need?

Toxicity is nicely described, and the article also indicates how vital oxygen is, but in what amount? Without oxygen we'd lose consciousness and die, but at what minimum level can we continue to function? How does this vary between sea level and altitude adapted humans? What tolerance ranges exist for other kinds of life forms? Is there a Wikipedia page that already gives this information on aerobic requirements/tolerance, and if so, where?--Egmonster (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Michał Sędziwój

A source suggests that it was actually Michał Sędziwój who discovered Oxygen. Please see: Maciej Iłowiecki: Dzieje nauki polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo „Interpress”, 1981, s. 55. ISBN 83-223-1876-6.--93.159.155.30 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's an English language source for the same. Praemonitus (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Phlogiston contradiction

In the same paragraph:

"non-combustible substances that corrode, such as iron, contained very little [phlogiston]"
"one of the first clues that the phlogiston theory was incorrect was that metals gain weight in rusting (when they were supposedly losing phlogiston)"

How could iron lose phlogiston if it contained very little to begin with? Shouldn't it be gaining phlogiston when rusting, which is consistent with the weight gain? Am I missing something here? MayorGayer (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Obscure image

is very difficult to comprehend. The purpose is good, but the caption promises more than the image delivers. Like, which object is the magnet, where is the stream of oxygen, and which way is up? Does anyone have a better one we can put here?

I'm pretty sure it's like in this sketch from the description: http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~moloney/AppComp/1999Entries/clamp.gif MayorGayer (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

The article repeats that oxygen was named after the greek word for oxygen, two times , Tuffy0415 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Once is the the lede and once is in the body of the article. As the lede summarizes the article, every fact in the lede must be mentioned elsewhere in the article. YBG (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oxygen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108225824/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000132.html to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000132.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227014309/https://www.mathesontrigas.com/pdfs/msds/00225011.pdf to https://www.mathesontrigas.com/pdfs/msds/00225011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227014309/https://www.mathesontrigas.com/pdfs/msds/00225011.pdf to https://www.mathesontrigas.com/pdfs/msds/00225011.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6224560-description.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912184905/http://www.uhms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=270 to http://www.uhms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=270
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308213517/http://www.servomex.com/oxygen_gas_analyser.html to http://www.servomex.com/oxygen_gas_analyser.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo of scuba divers.

This is probably not the best photo for this article, as it is highly unlikely that the cylinders contained oxygen, or that the divers were particularly deep. The alt text was misleading, so I removed it. The current caption is also inaccurate at best. If the purpose of the photo can be defined, I will try to find a better one. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxygen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225185659/http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm to http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Oxygen was disovered in 1774. They could not breath before that tho ))):  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.1.102 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 

Undue trivia?

Use of liquid oxygen in publicity stunts burning barbecue grills. Is this encyclopaedic? The website linked as a reference is also probably unsuitable for a features article. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree.JSR (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So do I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.106.117 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Limits of Priestley's discovery; Lavoisier's priority in recognizing oxygen as an element

I've altered the lede section to clarify that Priestley's discovery of oxygen did not include recognition of oxygen as an element, and that it was Lavoisier (not Priestley) who first recognized oxygen as an element and first gave a correct explanation of its role in combustion. It is misleading at best to attribute the discovery of oxygen to Priestley without further explanation, when he not only never recognized it as an element, but went to his deathbed firmly convinced of a radically incorrect account of one of the most fundamental chemical roles of oxygen, its participation in combustion. From my own point of view, I'm not sure it makes sense to describe the first isolator of oxygen as having discovered it at all, when he so thoroughly misunderstood the fundamental nature of the gas he had isolated. Even assuming (as I have) that the questionable identification of Priestley as the discoverer is supported by secondary sources and should remain in the article, it should not be presented in a way that is sure to mislead the naive reader.

To be sure, what should reasonably count as discovery is historically relative. If we attribute the discovery of copper to prehistory, or of phosphorus to alchemy, no one will be misled into thinking that they understood the role of copper or phosphorus as elements. But by the time of Priestley and Lavoisier, there is a tacit background assumption of a higher level of understanding on the part of a "discoverer". The article should make it clear in the lede that Priestley lacked that understanding.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's very fair. Scheele, Priestley, and Lavoisier all have reasonable claims to discovery depending on how you look at it, and the lede now justly mentions all three and the angles from which their claim can be supported. Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This bit could be improved/corrected

This sentence in 2nd paragraph:

"Oxygen is continuously replenished in Earth's atmosphere by photosynthesis, which uses the energy of sunlight to produce oxygen from water and carbon dioxide. Oxygen is too chemically reactive to remain a free element in air without being continuously replenished by the photosynthetic action of living organisms."

Should be modified to be something like:

The Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide balance in the atmosphere and oceans (and to a greater extent the entire earth's crust) is fundamentally important to all life on earth. The processes of photosynthesis and respiration continually convert CO2 to O2 and O2 to CO2 respectively. In addition, natural processes can impact or add to the balance of these gases in both steady state or sudden event type interactions.

At very high concentrations oxygen becomes very reactive and would tend to be depleted from the atmosphere through oxidation reactions. This however is prevented naturally through the presence of nitrogen, which makes up approximately 78% of the earth's atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RfullE (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above suggestion contains much that is wrong, overly vague, or misleading. There's no reason to complicate the issue by mentioning respiration, for example. Respiration is simply another (type of) chemical reaction which removes O2 from the atmosphere. The idea presented here that nitrogen prevents (LOL!!) oxygen from reacting is nonsense. Assuming a false premise, that the O2 concentration suddenly becomes "very high" is magical thinking. It is not a real possibility, it is unfalsifiable. First year chemistry teaches that a chemical reaction RATE is generally an increasing function of concentration; dilution will slow a reaction BUT. does. not. prevent. it. The "balance" of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the Earth's crust is irrelevant to this discussion. The amount of molecular oxygen and molecular carbon dioxide in the crust isn't well known, but also isn't believed (afaik) to be significant, especially not to "all life one Earth". The author perhaps confuses carbonates (which may be discussed as CO2 equivalents) and other geological oxygen reservoirs (oxides, silicates, water, hydrates, etc.). The geological carbon cycle is an important process, we believe, for the existence of life on Earth, but the balance between geological CO2 and O2? Not so much.72.16.99.93 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• • +***

The first paragraph should state and explain what oxygen is, not the history that nobody is quite sure about. The history should be in the history section, not half in the first paragraph and half in the history section. There seems to be some assumption that someone wants to know the history and the people behind an element's discovery when really, I doubt anyone looks up Oxygen because they want to know who Wikipedia thought discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:296:150:0:0:1:5D (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add information about Diatoms

Diatoms contribute to 20% of all oxygen supply on the planet (other sources on the internet say up to 50%); seems important to mention them on a page about oxygen. There is already a page about diatoms...so the information may just need to be linked. Can someone help me do it? Every time I try to edit WIKI, I fail. THANKS! PharmDelicious (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC) https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Diatom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.227.109.53 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the situation is more complex than presented above. Diatoms contribute up to (but probably less than) 40% of marine primary production. Which produces oxygen. The oceans as a whole are responsible for around one half of primary production, with the land responsible for the other half. However, the oxygen produced through primary production by diatoms is also consumed by respiration (by the diatoms themselves, but more so by other organisms). And thinking just about oxygen production, the oceans overall are close to balance on this point, or possibly even net consumers of oxygen. In part, this is because the oceans receive organic matter from the land which is then consumed by respiration (and consumes oxygen) within the ocean. So the headline statements above around oxygen and the role of the diatoms are a little over-simplified. And just because you can find them made "on the internet" does not make them either true or reliable.

When you say you "FAIL" on Wikipedia, are you being reverted? If so, it might be because you're not adding sources in support of such statements. As I mentioned above, you should only add material that is reliably sourced. Follow the link there to get some idea of what's considered reliable on Wikipedia. But do keep trying to edit - the encyclopedia needs volunteers like yourself. Cheers, —PLUMBAGO 10:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The New Wikipedia

I am a chemist. I know few if any chemists who call O2 "dioxygen" except when differentiating it from other forms (atomic, ozone, etc.). Most people and most chemists would refer to O2 as either oxygen or molecular oxygen (even though ozone is also technically molecular oxygen). I see this NOWHERE in the article. WHY NOT?? This FACT needs to be prominently mentioned...and WHY is this article protected???72.16.99.93 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles are usually protected to limit vandalism. If you have something you would like to include in a protected article, propose it here on the talk page, provide reliable references, ad if someone agrees with your motivation it will be added to the page. Alternatively, create an account for yourself and as this article is only semi-protected, you will soon be able to edit it for yourself. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by volunteers, some of them are more expert than others, some are more interested in particular topics than others, and some have the time to spare. If you fall into the group who would like to fix the article and have the time and skill to do so, please consider creating an account (free and quick) and helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I too have been researching this, there used to be a clear named distinguishment between the atomic form and the molecular form. I seemed to have remembered that the former name for O1 was Oxium, however I have now found an old article which proves me wrong, instead it's Octium. reference: https://www.worldofmolecules.com/elements/oxygen.htm right at the top. Now notice that the reference on this page is a broken link equivalent to a 404 "Unavailable service" "service unavailable" and the contents of the site claim to be about environmental protection. The Atomic form does have a clear name, it was made to distinguish the atom from the gas, as the atom is toxic and the gas is not, and the atom does not exist in the same state as the gas and behaves differently. I remember reading an article (that I can't find now) which proposed that the "ium" ending to the word was breaking the atomic naming standards as it implied it was a metal then went on to claim it was a gas because it was as light as air. However because it is a single atom there is no space between it and other composing atoms, thus it is in fact a solid. thus the "ium" ending was appropriate. So O1 = Octium, O2 = Oxygen, O3= Ozone. There should be a reference to this. I will return to discuss this if need be. 92.5.250.20 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Peter, this is a very 'poor' article and poorly written, so it is fairly arrogant to assume anyone else could not do better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:296:150:0:0:1:5D (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

We need a name to distinguish between the atomic form and the gas, what should it be?

It really is breaking the naming convention rules for "Oxygen" to refer to both the Atom (O1 or O) and the molecule (O2), especially given that the atom is toxic and the molecule is not, and the atom behaves differently from the molecule. A long long time ago, I remembered reading that O1 (O) had a unique name which differed from the gas' name. I incorrectly remembered it as Oxium, where after very hard research to find any reference to it https://www.worldofmolecules.com/elements/oxygen.htm apparently it is "Octium". So O is not Oxygen, O is Octium, O2 is Oxygen, and O3 is Ozone. Even if this is not the correct name, or even if this name has been refuted by naming sources for any reason, the fact still stands; we need a name to distinguish the atom from the molecule without forcing people to sub-specify such as with "oxygen-atom" and "oxygen-molecule". From what I remember the name Oxium/Octium was refuted only recently in the past 10 years by some researcher claiming the "ium" ending to the word was inappropriate as it implied it was a metal when they deemed it a gas (no reference, I may be mis-remembering) If that were the case should we not replace it with "Octigen"? Where the latin root is satisfied "Oct" being the 8th (it's #8) and "Gen" being geinomai (engender) (same as with Oxygen). this is important, because as it stands right now we are lacking a specific singular word to adequately describe the difference between O1 and O2, I realize it would mean dramatic changes to this article and to other articles on the same subject but for the sake of linguistic accuracy it is improper and dangerous to say O1 and O2 are both Oxygen, it's exactly the same as saying CO2 and CO1 are both Carbon and Oxygen. Atomic Elements must have a differing name from their molecular forms, so that CO2 and CO1 are (CO2)Carbon and Oxygen, and (CO1)Carbon and Octigen/Octium/Oxium respectively. if you have a better name please discuss, I am in no way trying to take credit for coining a term, just pointing out the need for someone to coin a term for it and giving my own suggestions. Thanks. Joshex (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bluish red? or purple?

Very minor point. Is "bluish red" really a color? Or is "purple" the word for this in English. Note that it is not a good answer to say that medical texts use it, if they do, because that might just be useless jargon, not a genuine medical term that has a precise meaning. But I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

es lost

es did not end up in hist (?!). Intended: "GF but why? This is about the atomic concept of oxygen first" DMacks. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of detail. That was in the middle of my waffling about how to handle several allotropes (main article and subarticles by physical state or molecular identity). If this has substantial "allotrope" content, then the cat guidelines are that we usually only put things in the most specific cat (not also its parent cats). But looking more closely, this really is only slightly about allotropes and mostly about everything-related-to-oxygen. So it should remain in the main cat not the allotropy subcat. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thx. Over at WT:ELEMENTS there are thoughts expressed that this should be treated more conceptually: A. article about O atom (say physical/chem essence), and B. article about O-atom in RL (incl O₂, C-diamond etc.). Sure an issue to be improved. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

203.144.68.65 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

I would like to request to include the following content in 'Biological Role of Oxygen'

" Oxygen is the fundamental electron transport mechanism in the universe. Its the way through which the universe is monitoring, recording, maintaining internal stability, obtaining coordinated responses and is managing the ecology of life. Oxygen is the mediator of homeostatic regulation. The homeostatic regulation in the ecology of life is mediated through oxygen. "

References:

1. Jibin Joy

https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2380-5439.S1-001

2. An insight from the ayurvedic perspective of neurodegeneration Jibin Joy DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.10.532 2402:3A80:1930:9FA1:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: do you have a secondary source for this? This reads to me like nonsense (how on earth is the universe "monitoring" something?), and it's written only by Jibin Joy (quoted as an "independent researcher" who is "not affiliated" with any institution). --Volteer1 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

In section 2.1 (Properties and Molecular Structure), at the end of the second paragraph, "...cancellation of contributions from the remaining two of the six 2p electrons..." should be changed to "...cancellation of contributions from the remaining two of the eight 2p electrons...". That is, change "six 2p electrons" to "eight 2p electrons".

Rationale: each oxygen atom as 4 2p electrons (as can be seen in the diagram in the article), and a diatomic oxygen molecule has 8 2p electrons, not 6. Alternatively, one could interpret the current article as saying that considering the 8 total 2p electrons, after the first two 2p electrons fill the sigma orbital, there are six more 2p electrons to go into the pi orbitals, and that's the number "six" in the current article. However, the current article does not talk about the filling of the sigma orbital by the first two 2p electrons, and therefore the current explanation could be misinterpreted. Sunfishstanford (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sunfishstanford, editor who added it may have intended to follow the wording of the source - three bonding orbitals are filled by six of 2p. But I think I follow your argument. What do you think about removing "of the six" altogether, so it reads from the remaining two 2p electrons? -- hemantha (brief) 04:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@hemantha, thanks for the great suggestion. Looking at the source, it's clear that the remaining two 2p electrons are populating the pi* orbitals only. So how about also removing "lowest pi and", and changing to:

...cancellation of contributions from the remaining two 2p electrons after their partial filling of the π* orbitals. Sunfishstanford (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --hemantha (brief) 02:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@hemantha, thanks very much! Sunfishstanford (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Mar 1, 2022

I think the section on "Toxicity" should be expanded slightly by reference to "oxygen-deficient atmospheres". There is an article that could be used for most of the details: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation I might point out that inert gas displacement is only one form of oxygen-deficient atmospheres. We are all familiar with the routine safety instruction prior to aircraft takeoff. Rapid (or slow) decompression is not really "inert gas asphyxiation" but is another form of O2-deficiency. Likewise, altitude sickness is a form of O2-deficiency. Both of those are explained by reference to the physical chemistry principle of "partial pressures". It is the partial pressure of oxygen that determines the availability of O2 molecules for cellular processes.

I'm used to having an "Edit" tab on Wiki pages but here there doesn't seem to be that facility.

-- David Winsemius, MD, MPH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4A81:9280:859F:34C5:D5D8:4B87 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

In the second paragraph of the "Later history" sub-section of history of study, reversible is misspelled revercible. 35.21.137.239 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

The "History of Study" section unexpectedly ends with the sentence

"Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are trending slightly downward globally, possibly because of fossil-fuel burning."

which doesn't seem to fit the rest of the content. It should probably be moved to "Build-up in the atmosphere". 77.174.7.12 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

For this request to be implemented, it would need to be in a specific "please change X to Y" format, i.e., where exactly should this sentence be moved?

Alternatively, it could also be moved to the section Occurrence, which I feel may be more appropriate because the section Build-up in the atmosphere deals more with geological history. ComplexRational (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. per above Aaron Liu (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about oxygen providing energy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While consensus was to remove the claim, it was removed for reasons of WP:COI

---

Should a statement be included that oxygen provides most of the chemical energy in combustion? IpseCustos (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove claims, unless they can be sourced to multiple RS independent of the editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC).
• Remove claims, in the absence of multiple, independent, reliable sources that unambiguously make the claim and indicate that it is important to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove claim in the absence of reliable sources making the statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove, unless it can be demonstrated that reliable sources show this to be the current scientific consensus. The ones currently used fall far short of that standard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Explain The view that oxygen provides "most of the chemical energy in combustion" is growing in acceptance. It is certainly vital in the fire triangle. However, the full story is complex. Oxygen is a triplet diradical, a rather unusual chemical species, that in part explains both why it can form ~20% of the atmosphere while (under some circumstances) reacting readily with other elements and compounds abundant in nature. A 2017 article DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232 (open access) discusses this in detail and cites Schmidt-Rohr among many others. I think that the way forward for Wikipedia is to give more explanation, not rely on simplistic statements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  That article presents Schmidt-Rohr's work as a non-standard perspective. That tends to suggest that the text currently in question, which includes an addition to the lede as well as the body and is quite unambiguous, should still be removed. I'd rather not have a point that is ambiguous, up for debate, or in need of qualification in the introduction to the article on oxygen, of all things. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove, is this oversimplifies an exceedingly complex interaction. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove Reliable sources are needed to keep that claim. AnneDant87 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The claim has now been removed, from this and many other articles. I believe it is extremely unlikely that a consensus would form in favor of reintroducing the claim, so this RfC can be closed, IMHO. IpseCustos (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding table of thermal and physical properties

I have a couple of tables from my heat transfer textbooks that would probably be helpful, especially for engineers and scientists. It's a table of properties versus temperature at atmospheric pressure. (Note: for some reason it isn't pasting as a table here, but when editing an actual page usually it does, the practice page I just pasted it to worked...)

Table of thermal and physical properties of saturated liquid O2: Temperature (K) Density (kg/m^3) Specific heat (kJ/kg °C) Dynamic viscosity (kg/m s) Kinematic viscosity (m^2/s) Thermal conductivity (W/m °C) Thermal diffusivity (m^2/s) Prandtl Number 100 3.945 0.962 7.64E-06 1.94E-06 0.00925 2.44E-06 0.796 150 2.585 0.921 1.15E-05 4.44E-06 0.0138 5.80E-06 0.766 2.00E+02 1.93 0.915 1.48E-05 7.64E-06 0.0183 1.04E-05 0.737 250 1.542 0.915 1.79E-05 1.16E-05 0.0226 1.60E-05 0.723 300 1.284 0.92 2.07E-05 1.61E-05 0.0268 2.27E-05 0.711 350 1.1 0.929 2.34E-05 2.12E-05 0.0296 2.90E-05 0.733 400 0.962 0.942 2.58E-05 2.68E-05 0.033 3.64E-05 0.737 450 0.8554 0.956 2.81E-05 3.29E-05 0.0363 4.44E-05 0.741 500 0.7698 0.972 3.03E-05 3.94E-05 0.0412 5.51E-05 0.716 550 0.6998 0.988 3.24E-05 4.63E-05 0.0441 6.38E-05 0.726 600 0.6414 1.003 3.44E-05 5.36E-05 0.0473 7.35E-05 0.729 Holman, Jack P. (2002). Heat Transfer (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. pp. 600–606. ISBN 9780072406559.

Incropera 1 Dewitt 2 Bergman 3 Lavigne 4, Frank P. 1 David P. 2 Theodore L. 3 Adrienne S. 4 (2007). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 941–950. ISBN 9780471457282.

700 0.5498 1.031 3.81E-05 6.93E-05 0.0528 9.31E-05 0.744 800 0.481 1.054 4.15E-05 8.63E-05 0.0589 1.16E-04 0.743 9.00E+02 0.4275 1.074 4.47E-05 1.05E-04 0.0649 1.41E-04 0.74 1.00E+03 0.3848 1.09 4.77E-05 1.24E-04 0.071 1.69E-04 0.733 1.10E+03 0.3498 1.103 5.06E-05 1.45E-04 0.0758 1.96E-04 0.736 1.20E+03 0.3206 1.115 5.33E-05 1.66E-04 0.0819 2.29E-04 0.725 1.30E+03 0.296 1.125 5.88E-05 1.99E-04 0.0871 2.62E-04 0.721 Jlefevre76 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It failed to paste properly because double spaces and single line breaks are automatically ignored in normal text. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics, and you did not provide complete source details. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include my sources, or maybe they just didn't paste as expected.

Holman, Jack P. (2002). Heat Transfer (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. pp. 600–606. ISBN 9780072406559.
Incropera 1 Dewitt 2 Bergman 3 Lavigne 4, Frank P. 1 David P. 2 Theodore L. 3 Adrienne S. 4 (2007). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 941–950. ISBN 9780471457282.

"High-energy oxygen" theory

The claim, currently included in the lede, that

Dioxygen provides most of the chemical energy released in combustion and aerobic cellular respiration

is part of a very wide campaign by a Wikipedia editor to insert references to his theory in many science articles (so if you're trying to research it on Wikipedia, you'll likely come across another page edited in the same way by the same person). This theory, which describes oxygen as a "high-energy" molecule, is pretty fringe-y, and culminates in such statements as

the lower heating value is directly proportional to the amount of oxygen consumed in the combustion

which, of course, it isn't. Branched alkanes differ in their heating value (but not in the amount of oxygen consumed in their combustion) from the unbranched alkane they are based on. (See also ring strain, aromaticity, triple bond).

(It's well-known that for restricted classes of fuels, a rough approximation of the heating value can be obtained by considering only the elemental composition of the fuel, or even just the amount of oxygen required for its combustion. See Weir formula for a 1949 paper that's pretty clear about that.)

I strongly feel this theory should be removed from Wikipedia. It's non-notable, violates the scientific consensus, has been introduced by a single COI editor, and I believe (though others may feel differently) that it qualifies as both a fringe theory and pseudoscience. Asking whether it's the oxygen or the fuel which "provides" the chemical energy for a reaction is a question which, in standard chemistry, simply makes no sense. (It does make sense, of course, if you consider nuclear energies, but the results are then very different from the predictions of this theory).

I've brought this up in a number of places:

• the author's talk page at User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr#Photosynthesis
• WP:FTN at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Chemical energy and related articles
• my user page is where I currently keep notes: User:IpseCustos
• individual articles' talk pages. Unfortunately, there's quite a few.

I've also fixed a few pages, but was, of course, reverted.

My question is two-fold:

1. If I'm wrong and it's actually perfectly good science and in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, could someone please tell me?
2. If I'm right and Wikipedia has been widely damaged in an attempt to push pseudoscience, how do I fix it? Is an RfC the next step?

IpseCustos (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Up to his old tricks again. [4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC).

"High-energy oxygen": I'm sorry this discussion is a mess

The discussion concerning "high-energy oxygen" is a mess. That's my fault, and I'm sorry and will try to do better in future, choosing a single central venue for discussion when possible.

• Most of it is on WP:FTN at WP:FTN#Chemical energy and related articles.
• Some of it is on User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr and User talk:IpseCustos.
• Some of it is on Talk:Photosynthesis.
• Some of it is on this page, Talk:Oxygen.
• There's a plea for help on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Chemistry.

Since so many articles are involved (57 articles assigning the chemical energy of oxidation to the oxygen molecule), I might have missed some.

Again, I'm sorry, I realize this is making life harder for other editors who just want to get an overview. If there's anything I can do to actually improve the situation, rather than adding more and more posts to various discussion forums, please let me know?

IpseCustos (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a published expert in chemical energy and bioenergetics, the field under dispute here, and have credentials as a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Everything I have written on this topic builds quantitatively on chemical textbook principles of the relations between bond strengths, chemical energy, and heat or free energy release. According to these textbook principles, conversion of relatively weak electron-pair bonds, as found for instance in O₂, to stronger bonds releases energy, which means that relatively weak bonds store chemical energy. I have not deleted other editors’ content in any major or disruptive manner but rather added fairly brief technical statements prompted by the context (and have also made numerous unrelated advanced technical edits in articles within my expertise, e.g. on formal and applied thermodynamics, chemical equilibrium, kinetics, acids/bases, mass in special relativity, NMR spectroscopy, electrochemistry, statistical mechanics, materials, solubility, etc.).

My (and a few colleagues') careful and quantitative thermodynamic analyses have elucidated notable but previously unexplained facts of chemical energy and bioenergetics, and have been published in detailed and accessible peer-reviewed articles by reputable publishers such as the American Chemical Society.

Examples of questions answered include:

- Why is combustion or aerobic respiration of organic molecules always exothermic, and why is the heat of combustion of an organic fuel in a fire (LHV) directly proportional to the amount of O₂ consumed?

- Why do carbohydrates have less than half the heat of combustion, per gram, of fat?

- Why does fermentation of glucose produce only 2 ATP, while respiration of glucose + 6 O₂ produces 30 ATP? (Attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO₂ + 3 CH₄ releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O₂, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules would release no energy at all.)

- How is nearly half of the energy of aerobic respiration released by the reaction of O₂ at Complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken?

- Why do plants need two photosystems in tandem?

- What is the source of the energy of the photons (~200 kJ/mol) emitted, for instance by fireflies, in bioluminescence, and why O₂ the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence?

- Why was life energetically limited before the widespread availability of atmospheric oxygen?

My brief explanations answering these questions in relevant Wikipedia articles have led to friction with editors who for some reason seem uninterested in providing explanations of such notable facts (even after repeated prompting, they have not shared sources showing alternative valid explanations of the notable science questions listed) and accepting their conceptual consequences.

In any case, as soon as I understood the viewpoints and expectations of other editors, I started to work on consensus phrasing that took these concerns into account where possible. Specifically, we have consensus that in general terms combustion and aerobic respiration “releases the chemical energy of fuels/nutrient molecules and oxygen”, and I have accordingly revised the contested phrasing in a significant fraction of the articles in question. Can we build on that consensus? In a few other cases, I have documented every important statement with a reliable secondary source (textbook with specific page number or official standard) and thus fully met Wikipedia requirements.

In the course of this discussion, individual editors have opined that incorrect statements are fine on Wikipedia or that experts should not edit in their area of expertise; notable scientific facts backed by reliable secondary sources (textbooks) have been deleted. This is rather disappointing. I hope that the community of science editors on Wikipedia more broadly will carefully examine the veracity and notability of the specific disputed statements and their contexts, in the cases where consensus has not yet been reached. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The word "together", in the phrase I agreed might be an acceptable compromise under certain conditions, is crucial. IpseCustos (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

See [5]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).

References

Symbol O

I was taught O is a letter not a symbol. 2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In this context, the term "symbol" refers to chemical symbol. O is the chemical symbol for oxygen. ¹⁴¹Pr 17:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Breathing

I could find nothing in this article about oxygen being the reason we breath, and it being the element that combines with food to produce the energy to keep us alive. Am I wrong? Did I over look it? A huge number of readers will not know this, and this is the most important feature of oxygen from our point of view. So I added it to the introduction, which should always contain the information that readers will find the most important. Nick Beeson (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It is covered in Oxygen#Photosynthesis_and_respiration. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It might be stated better that the reason we breath at all is precisely because of the prevalence of dioxygen (or rather life evolved to breath dioxygen because 'it is there' and it is suitably reactive) (Andy Loates). 81.155.194.247 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

The sentence "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." is missing the word "to". It should read "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen TO the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." ChiCub08 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)