Talk:Oxygen/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

what is the accepted value for the amu of 16O? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimenlupis (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone named George deleted the whole page. Will try to revert to older page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkema (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Elementbox converted per Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 10:34, 22 Jun 2005).

This was removed from the article, but might have a place in further versions:

• The process by which oxygen reacts with other elements or chemical compunds is called oxidation, though the term has since been generalised by chemists to also refer to electrochemistry processes not involving oxygen. Oxygen is not necessary for oxidation the way chemists use the term (removal of electrons from something).

QUESTION: In the movie The Abyss, they used liquid oxygen to breathe in their deep-diving suits. Is this practical fact, or fiction?

That wasn't pure liquid oxygen. Rather, it was an inert fluorocarbon liquid that is capable of dissolving much larger amounts of oxygen than ordinary water can. I'm not sure what the technical term is, but it is indeed real; that rat they immersed in the movie really did breathe the stuff, and it's being studied as a possible therapy for people with certain lung conditions (not sure whether deep-diving is another use it's actually being considered for). Trying to breathe pure liquid oxygen would kill you, on account of freezing you solid and oxidizing all your biomolecules. --BD

The "image" of oxygen, below the description of the element as either clear or blue, is a pale-ish, grainy image that makes it look pink! This image should be removed, because it is only when you click on the picture that you realize it is a picture of a clear glass jar containing ... NOTHING! (which, by the way is probably plain air, so it is only about 21% oxygen, the rest being mostly Nitrogen). This needs to be eliminated or deleted...--Dahveed323 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this picture comes from User:RTC's page of elements photos, I consider that someone who can take a picture of thallium, mercury, and numerous other elements, can be trusted to have taken a picture of pure dioxygen rather than just have taken a picture of an empty jar. Sure it doesn't look like much, as it is colorless. Dravick 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The image should stay because I'm certain that it is of nearly pure oxygen and that the image instantly conveys to the reader that pure oxygen is clear. It also doesn't look pink to me. --mav (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Its blue, the liquid is bubbling and the cold vapour can be seen above - its LOx (liquid oxygen) in a Dewar flask. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the image of the gas... --mav (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry I thought we were talking about this one ->

File:Liquid Oxygen.gif

By comparison the other one is pink. Is the gas picture necessary, the liquid picture would serve both purposes? It could be accurately described as: liquid oxygen with gaseous oxygen above it.Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Good point. If that wording is used, then I will not oppose the removal of the gas-only images. --mav (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The commercial manufacture of oxygen is completely missing from this article.

You can now find a note on that in the article on oxygen evolution. - tameeria 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This has since been fixed. --mav (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the angle between the covalent bonds of an O atom, eg in H2O, N2O? (IIRC it's not the same for all molecules, because the H repel in water) -- Tarquin 17:52 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

According to my ancient A-level databook, it's 104.5 deg in H-O-H, 109.0 deg in CH3-O-H, and 115.5 in CH3-O-CH3. IIRC, 109deg is the "standard" value. -- DrBob

I'm questioning the veracity of this statement: "Free oxygen, as on Earth, is thermodynamically unstable, but exists through the action of photosynthetic plants." I'm no expert in the field, but from my reading I'm pretty sure the genesis of free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is traceable to photosynthesizing anaerobic organisms long before the evolution of anything we would classify as a "plant". Much of the free oxygen given off as waste by these anaerobes combined with free iron and sank to the ocean floor, but when the supply of free iron was used up, most of the oxygen waste made its way to the atmosphere. Perhaps terrestrial plants jacked the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere up to its current level of 1/5, but most likely the majority of molecular oxygen even today came from the anaerobes... Anyway, any specialists out there who agree the use of "plants" in this sentence is off the mark? JDG 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, please change to "photosynthetic organisms". --mav 01:33, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This has since been fixed. --mav (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"In fact stars wouldn't produce light without oxygen." - Is this true? What's the basis for this? Alex.tan 07:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. If anyone wants it back in, please provide a reference. WormRunner 06:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is clearly not true. Stars form their light by a nuclear fusion (I think), forming hydrogen into helium. Oxygen has no place in a star!

Oxygen has no place in a star (unless that star is super-massive and fusing heavier elements, or in the process of causing a Nova.)

Not true, in fact in most > 2nd generation stars, the hydrogen to helium fusion is predominantly catalyzed in something called the CNO cycle. Which is to say, oxygen (and carbon and nitrogen) is a very important catalyst in the process.

Oxygen does have a place in a star but the statement at the top clearly isn't true.

It would be better to say, "O2 is the most stable form of oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive, forming many stable compounds with many elements."

Wes Hughes

how about "O2 is the most thermodynamically stable form of elemental oxygen" Gingekerr 09:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Who calls it octium and why? Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 03:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's its systematic element name. -- Ponder 05:15, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it is ok to consider this trivia rather than a widely used alternate name. I've moved it out the opening sentence to avoid this possible misperception. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 05:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gee, would the systematic element name for Boron be Pentium? *grin* WCFrancis 18:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

               THIS IS WRONG!

"Molecular oxygen (O2, often called free oxygen) on Earth is thermodynamically unstable." --- It is WRONG to say that O2 is thermodynamically unstable. O2 is the most thermodynamically STABLE form of oxygen. True, oxygen does spontaneously form many compounds with other elements, but it is still the most thermodynamically stable form of oxygen. ----- Wesley Hughes [email protected]

              THIS IS WRONG!... and you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

"Molecular oxygen (O2, often called free oxygen) on Earth is thermodynamically unstable." --- It is WRONG to say that O2 is thermodynamically unstable. O2 is the most thermodynamically STABLE form of oxygen. True, oxygen does spontaneously form many compounds with other elements, but it is still the most thermodynamically stable form of oxygen. ----- Wesley Hughes [email protected]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oxygen"

this is actually right. Please note the context -- oxygen ON EARTH is thermodynamically unstable. the statement did not say "molecular oxygen is a thermodynamically unstable FORM OF OXYGEN" The point is, free oxygen cannot exist on earth unless it is constantly being replenished, precisely because it will spontaneously form many compounds with other elements. This is, however, not the case, say, IN SPACE, where the great distance between individual molecules largely prevents chemical reactions.

The distance between molecules is a kinetic factor, not a thermodynamic factor, and therefore does not affect the relative thermodynamic stability (in terms of standard change in Gibbs energy) of monatomic versus diatomic oxygen. Gingekerr 09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"In the 19th century, oxygen was often mixed with nitrous oxide to promote a kind of analgesic effect."

I'm pretty sure I was given an Oxygen/Nitrous Oxide mix by an ambulance crew once (in 2002, in Canada). The paramedics said they use it because it wears off really fast once they stop administration, which is nescesary if the emergency room doctor wants to administer any other drugs.

From the current text. "Some scientists have proposed to use the measurement of the radiance coming from vegetation canopies in those oxygen bands to characterize plant health status from a satellite platform." -- has this actually been done. If not, it sounds like original research and not appropriate in this article. Either way, "some scientists" doesn't replace need for a citation.

I am unable to find the standard molar entropy of oxygen (or any other element for that matter) in the Wikipedia. Hey guys, don't forget that the entropy scale, unlike the enthalpy and Gibbs function, is absolute. Oxygen has a physically defined standard molar entropy (around 200J/Kmol IIRC) which should be mentioned in the article.

Or so I was told one day. I came to this article to try to ascertain this fact, but no mention of it is found here. Basically oxygen in an activated state is toxic to cells at atmospheric pressure, etc. and without vitamin C, etc. we would die from the very oxygen that sustains us, and also why a lot of cells die in oxygen presence who are adapted only to anaerobic living. -- Natalinasmpf 23:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to define poisonous - virtually everything can be poisonous in sufficient amounts (and we all do hold different definitions of poisonous). A good article should clarify that oxygen can be deleterious to cells and that free radicals are produced in the process of aerobic respiration but that oxygen is more helpful than harmful to humans (yes we're all so Homo-sapiens-centered) at certain concentrations and is thus not a poison at those everyday concentrations.

also singlet oxygen is pretty toxic in a way that triplet oxygen isn't.

Simfish 09:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read about oxygen, at its most harmful state, is the most deadly gas in the world, but I'm not certain since I've read about it from a fictious source. I hope someone will verify this since I'm quite curious yet I am not particularly well-versed in mostly anything related to science. User:Alamkonayun 20:24 12 September 2007 (PST)

The notion of who "discovered" oxygen is somewhat disputed...I don't think the article should necessarily come out and assign that honor to any one person. I've briefly illustrated in Theories and sociology of the history of science, but I hadn't heard of Michał Sędziwój before, and there's an insufficient amount of material between here and his biography article to say how what he did was similar to or different from later investigators. If anyone would care to enlighten us, that would be greatly appreciated. -- Beland 23:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've commented out that sentence for now. --mav (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on

• Oxygen Therapy – The First 150 Years

gets response:

 Forbidden
 You do not have permission to access the requested file on this server.

Sorry that I neglected to sign the previous. Just checked link and have same response. -- WCFrancis 17:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. If access changes, it is still here for easy restoration. -- WCFrancis 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Does O₄ actually exist? I would like some references to its puported discovery because as is, it looks like a hoax to me. 24.247.85.157 02:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Use google before you accuse someone of lying please.

Darrien 01:55, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

It's quite a leap from "looks like a hoax" to accusations of lying, Darrien.

How so? Following the definition of the word, I find it quite easy to jump from "looks like a hoax" to "lying". Especially since in an encyclopedia, any hoax would be deliberate misinformation. If any definition fits the word "lying", "deliberate misinformation" would be a very accurate one.

I would call it a leap. Sying something looks like a hoax and saying that it is a hoax are two totally different things. It's like the difference between suggesting and accusing.Hackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The leap is from the healthy skepticism that 24.247.85.157 displayed to (seemingly) taking it as a personal insult.

That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the leap from "hoax", in the context of an encyclopedia, to "lying". Not the leap from "hoax" to "personal insult".

To someone not well versed in chemistry, I don't think it would be obvious that O₄ would be called tetraoxygen. Without knowing that term, it would be nearly impossible to find on Google; without being able to find a reference to it on Google, one might easily infer that it's a hoax.

One need not publicize their inferences. Asking for a reference is enough.

One needs patience when dealing with people who are not familiar with the customs of wikipedians. I imagine 24.247.85.157 is just such a person. Anyway, isn't the talk page exactly the place where one should publicize one's inferences when one is skeptical of the content of an article?

What do wikipedia customs have to do with tempering one's opinion?

It has everything to do with the necessity of tempering one's opinionHackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should parenthetically note the name in the article. HorsePunchKid 02:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Very well, I have just done so.

Thank you. Perhaps that would have been a better solution than admonishing 24.247.85.157.

I would think that admonishing new users is something that would be encouraged.

Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Darrien 03:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Well, maybe not "nearly impossible", but it takes a non-trivial search to get any related information,

You consider "oxygen O4" non-trivial?

Yes; yes I do.

I thought that adding more relevant keywords to a search was standard practice when using search engines.

I picture my mother (a biologist, even!) trying to verify the existence of tetraoxygen. I can almost guarantee that she would have significant trouble finding a reputable reference. As I said, even with that search, reputable references aren't immediately obvious. Hence, non-trivial.

Oh, so you can read your mother's mind? I can picture any number of things with varying degreees of basis in reality Hackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When I search for "oxygen O4", the third link is to nature.com. The 18th link is to nih.gov. I would consider those immediately obvious.

Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

and even then, a lot of the results aren't particularly reputable... Aranizer, anyone? ;) HorsePunchKid 02:26, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Darrien 03:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

HorsePunchKid 05:03, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing a reference, Darrien. But to clarify on when I said it "looks like a hoax", I googled searched for the term, "O4" because I don't know how to search for "O₄" on Google. I also did not know that the name of this allotrope was "tetraoxygen" because I knew that ozone is not called "trioxygen" in daily life and therefore I assumed that O₄ had a name other than "tetraoxygen" but I did not know it. When Google returned its results, none of the pages brought up were even close to what I was looking for, and that is why I assumed it was some sort of hoax. I do fully apologize if my wording seemed too harsh, but when I seen it, I could not at all believe anything that I saw, for I never, in my entire life, heard or saw description of this substance outside of Wikipedia. That is why I asked for a reference, because after all, it is a good idea to Cite sources, especially if what is said seems unbelievable. Can anyone of you please give me some slack for not knowing how to request it more politely at the time?

Your request for a reputable source was not the problem.

I'm just asking for a reference on the article page, and I am only am a 19 year-old high school graduate who has never attended a college course.

This is what I have a problem with. If you don't know anything about a subject, why be so quick to make accusations of a hoax? A simple request for a reputable source is enough.

Why? Because it's enjoyable, of course! Hackwrench 21:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, full apologies for being so rude, disrespectful, and for not paying close attention to Wikiquette:(. 24.247.85.157 16:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to apolgize, everyone makes mistakes. Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

If people didn't make mistakes, there would be no apoligies... That's what people apologize for.Hackwrench 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions both the 'red oxygen' O₄ allotrope as well as an occurence of an (O₂)₂ molecule in liquid oxygen, which could also be written O₄. Can someone expound on whether these two allotropes are different instances of same thing, or completely different? [I could muddy the waters a little here by educatedly guessing that perhaps it's (O₂)₂ with the mooted O₄ double-dumbell shape and further guessing that red O₄ is actually tetrahedral - much like molecular phosphorus, which is tetrahedral P₄. I'd then suggest (positronic?) delocalisation of the holes in red O₄'s electron cloud. Thinking about it, that would explain why it packs together so tightly.] Cyrek 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How come a change from "nitrates (NO₃⁻)are" to "nitrates (NO₃⁻) are" isn't recognized in a diff? Laundrypowder 17:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It is, it's just it doesn't show up as red, because who ever heard of a space with a font color? --Ruff ^{Bark away!}

I know a collector of antiquarian chemistry books, and he says that the book in which Priestly announced the discovery of oxygen was published in two volumes, with the discovery of oxygen announced in the second volume. Apparently this second volume was actually published after Lavoisier published the book announcing his discovery of oxygen, although the first volume was published before Lavoisier's announcement. This makes Lavoisier the first to publish (although why it actually matters beats me. Gingekerr 09:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that would be verifiable by looking up the books in question. I think Lavoisier gets no credit because it is now fairly well known he was basically trying to take credit for what Priestly had found. Of course that's all bound up in English vs continental rivalry, tension, etc. But this bit about Michał Sędziwój is what really troubles me. Is he really acepted as discovering oxygen? Usually when we speak of someone predicting or assuming an element, we say that, not call them the discoverer. What evidence is there for Sędziwój's claim? It is well accepted? - Taxman ^Talk 02:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The 1st edition was published in 1774 [1]. Was this all three volumes? I don't know, but in 1775 we apparently have all 3 volumes http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/priestley.html Jooler 06:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is written here that triplet oxygen has a single bond, while singlet oxygen has a double bond. This is completely false. The electrons in question here both reside in the doubly degenerate pi antibonding orbitals. The only difference between singlet and triplet oxygen is whether or not the electrons have their spins pointed in the same (triplet) or opposite (singlet) direction. Whichever state it is in, the electrons still reside in the pi antibonding orbital. Bond order is calculated in molecular orbital theory with the equation (# bonding electrons - # antibonding electrons)/2. In the case of oxygen, taking into account all the valence bonding interactions from the s and p orbitals, we get (8-4)/2=2. Thus, both spin states of oxygen have a double bond. -- (128.197.112.233)

I removed the following section from the article. It is really awkward and contains mistakes, but may be worth including if/when fixes are made to it:

The easiest way to make oxygen is to use Hydrogen Peroxide and to speed up the reaction use a catalyst. The best catalyst is called Mnganese (IV) oxide. This makes oxygen easily. The Chemical equation = H²O² + Manganese (IV) Oxide −− H²O + Oxygen + Manganese (IV) Oxide. Another way to make oxygen is by using hoffmans voltmeter on water but this uses a lot a electricity so is very expensive

Edgar181 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just about any metal can catalyze the disproportionation of hydrogen peroxide to some extent. As far as I know, the best catalyst to make oxygen from peroxide is an enzyme called catalase, which produces oxygen faster than peroxide can diffuse into the active site of the enzyme; this is called a diffusion controlled process. Also, a section on making oxygen would be incomplete without a discussion of photosystem II, which is responsible for making virtually all the oxygen gas on Earth in the process of photosynthesis.

I've started summarizing oxygen production mechanisms (mainly oxygenic photosynthesis) in oxygen evolution. Do you think it should get a section in this article as well, or would a link suffice? - tameeria 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Information about Neil Bartlett can be found in Chemistry Third Edition by Raymond Chang (McGraw-Hill) pages 900-901. --Droll 09:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

History should probably give a clue when an atomic weight was first associated with oxygen. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

isn't there a balance between breathable oxygen generation and consumption? whenever we breath and exhale we are trapping what was previously breathable O2, into useless CO2. this also happens whenever something is burned, whether a candle, gasoline or deisel in an automobile, propane in a barbeque, or plant life in a forest fire. These are all kept in check by land (trees, etc..) and sea (algae, etc..) plantlife that convert the CO2 back into useable O2, however combustion also produces H20 and CO.

are there any natural processes that convert H2O or CO back into useable O2? with the advent of vehicles that run on hydrogen and emit only H20 as a 'pollutant' we will be trapping even more breathable oxygen molecules into H20.

also is the balance between consumption (breathing, burning, cars, etc...) and generation (plantlife) of O2 even known?

Sahuagin 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Plants and Co. convert H2O into O2 all the time during the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis. This works by light-driven photolysis of water to generate biochemical energy. Oxygen is released as a byproduct of that reaction. Plants and Co. fix carbon dioxide into sugars, but they do not convert CO2 into O2. O2 comes entirely from the water-splitting reaction. The two processes are coupled (since CO2 fixation requires the energy generated by splitting of protons and electrons from water), but they are two separate processes. CO2 goes into sugars and eventually organic matter, which is then converted back to CO2 during respiration or oxidation. - tameeria 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A friend of mine was relating how where he worked one day they were venting oxygen and had an explosion. I asked what exploded. He said it was the oxygen. I said that oxygen didn't burn; there had to be another gas/ substance present to cause an explosion. You can imagine the rest. Can you clarify in writing so I can show him?

well if it was a pressurized oxygen tank it could be that the tank exploded. either way the pure oxygen would quickly lead to nearly spontaneous combustion of nearby flammable materials.

"OXYGEN If an Oxygen cylinder is found to be leaking, evacuate the work area immediately and contact Laboratory Services at x9039. Oxygen enriched atmospheres cause normally noncombustible materials to be extremely flammable. Many substances will burst into flame in the presence of pure oxygen. Be prepared to evacuate the building." source document

Sahuagin 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While there are several references listed at the bottom of the article, there are is only one citation in the text at the moment (added by me for 02 presence in the earth's crust). Some of the numbers in the text will contiue to be changed as authors find conflicting numbers in other sources (I expect the 46.6 figure that I replaced is published somewhere, but without a citation I have no idea where.) The lack of citations seems to be a pattern in many of the other articles on elements as well. Reference lists are not a substitute for citations.Badocter 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For abundances, specifically, see also the newly-created abundances of the elements (data page). Femto 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

About 50 inline cites so far. More later. --mav (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says "Hydrochloric acid (HCl) does not contain oxygen." But this is not true, because hydrochloric acid is a solution of hydrogen chloride in water (H₂0). It would be more accurate to say that pure anhydrous HCl does not contain oxygen. --Seven of Nine 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement's entirely redundant, so I've removed it. Not least because HCl is only one example anyway. Furthermore, I think adding a remark about anhydrous HCl would just confuse things. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for fixing it. --Seven of Nine 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that this is linked from the main page, is there someone who could corroborate Michał Sędziwój's discovery of oxygen? The Polish article on him doesn't even mention the word for oxygen, and the references in the other article link him mainly to Christian Rosenkreuz who wasn't exactly a reputable scientist. Moszczynski 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that his role is tenuous at best and no different than what many other people did around the same time. So for now, I commented out that sentence. --mav (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What evidence is there for your statement? Moszczynski, you also make a strange comment in reference to his association with Rosenkreuz (if you are implying that alchemists dabbled in things today no longer considered 'scientific' then you're right). I claim that his role in the history surrounding the discovery of oxygen is more than tenuous. See the references under the article for Sendivogius - Michał Sędziwój. I think MS deserves more attention, and shouldn't be brushed of so sloppily. The history of oxygen in the age of alchemy is historically noteworthy. --%n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read many accounts of the history of oxygen while expanding this article and never have come across a mention of MS. So he evolved oxygen from saltpeter - many others did as well. What else did he do that was noteworthy in this regard? A good cite is also needed. --mav (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states: '... paramagnetic due to the negative exchange energy between neighbouring O₂ molecules.' Is oxygen not paramagnetic because the triplet state is the ground-state, so it has two unpaired electrons, and hence it is paramagnetic. And it does not matter whether it is in gas, liquid or solid state? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I wanted to add .. paramagnetism is not unusual, and compounds are not 'unusually paramagnetic', that makes no sense. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sort of does. Many compounds are slightly drawn to a magnet, but for just a handful is the attraction so strong that you can use a magnet to pick them up. Oxygen is one of these. SBHarris 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is paramagnetism, but every single atom in an odd group in the periodic table is paramagnetic, but most of them you don't encounter as a gas. Oxygen is a diatomic gas, which makes it indeed a notable one. But if I am correct, some of the metal-containing enzymes are also paramagnetic. And there are more naturally occuring compounds, which are paramagnetic (though for organic compounds it is seen less often, mainly in intermediates of reductions, but sometimes in stable compounds). But it is merely semantics. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, which elements are "gasses" is matter of the prejudice you have from being at the temperature you live at. They're ALL gasses at SOME temp! And all solids at some temp, except for helium at low pressure (which manages to stay liquid). But even for elements concentrated in this fashion, except for a few ferromagnetics you couldn't tell using a good magnet, which were and weren't paramagnetic, without some very fancy scales. Oxygen is different. You have to play with LOX and a magnet, and some other melted elements with a magnet to get a sense of the qualitative difference. SBHarris 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxygen is paramagnetic as a gas, while the article states that it's paramagnetic when liquid or solid...or at least it appears that way. Why? Is it intentional, because the paramagnetism is noticeable to the casual overserver only in these states? On the other hand, the paramagnetism of oxygen is really put to work in some physical gas detectors...so it's not totally unimportant! IMHO. --Klaws 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for oxygen to form a ring structure by itself? If not, why not? --Oranjemens

None has been seen, so far as I know. See [2]. The other chalcogens readily form rings, and one day we may see a ring form of ozone. But the larger ring forms are unstable due to QM reaons I don't understand on an intuitive basis. It may be simply that, as in many other compounds, if you're an element that lacks d orbitals, you lack the "space" to make certain large extended structures. Compare the ease that Si has in doing this with O, with carbon's many problems. It's all in the size. SBHarris 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that oxygen allotrope O2 needs its own article, just like ozone and tetraoxygen for example. Some information in this article can be placed in the main article. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent de Ruijter (talk • contribs) .

You could do it, but the oxygen article when talking about the free element still needs to spend most of its time on the most common allotrope, so there will be a lot of duplication. A separate main article for the most common allotrope is not done with other elements, with the possible exception of the carbon allotropes. I think best to have interesting but relatively uncommon allotropes (ozone, etc), like interesting but less common isotopes, as separate main articles with summary subsections in the element article, which covers everything, including the most common form in detail. See tritium and deuterium articles, which are still summarized under hydrogen. In this case, there is a main protium article, which sort of parallels what you suggest here. But I think protium and hydrogen could have been merged. SBHarris 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What SBHarris said. Femto 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed: Splitting the Oxygen article just for the diatomic version would logically conclude with doing it also for hydrogen, nitrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. Ozone is a special case which deserves special treatment. Greg L 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SBHarris, and I'd like to note that the protium article is a disambiguation page, and the relevant page linking to it is Hydrogen atom, which mostly treats quantum mechanical aspects of the atom. I think that's important enough to merit having two different articles, but O2 isn't interesting enough to warrant a split. Confiteordeo 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Greg L hit the nail on the head, i oppose Qaanaaq 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose for the reasons given above. --mav (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen is being presented as the second most abundant element on earth. In Iron page, iron is also presented as being the second most abundant element, alumunium being the first one, which is contradadictory. This must be corrected, thanks.

Well-spotted. From the page on Earth composition it looks like iron is the most abundant element (by mass) with oxygen second, and aluminium some way down the list (though still very much top 10). The source for this is OK, but I'd prefer a better one before I change things. If you can find one, please edit away ahead of me. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See abundances of the elements (data page) for some raw data cites. Femto 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Silica also claims to be the seonc most abundant. Qaanaaq 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "earth". If you count the whole planet, iron is probably the most abundant. But most abundance lists deal with the earth's crust only, in which, if I remember correctly, oxygen is the most abundant element, followed by silicon and aluminum. Itub 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article now clearly states what part of the earth it is talking about. --mav (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To say that sky colour and O2 are unrelated is false. O2 is by far the largest "Rayleigh scatterer" in the atmosphere(by volume).

It certainly isn't. Nitrogen is. If there were no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference visually. You may find this statement confusing, but perhaps the problem is that you just don't believe it. Different problem. If you want to see a blue sky on a planet without oxygen, merely look at the sky of Mars, on most days. The ground rovers show you that all the time. It's deep, dark blue. SBHarris 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

N2 is not a coherent scatterer; if it were, by Lord Rayleigh's calculations, the sky would be purple. The paramagnetic nature of O2 creates a non trivial alignment of the molecules with the earths magnetic field.

ahhhm the sky of Mars is almost never blue due to suspended dust particles. Its pink/brown. but anyway the color of the sky on earth is well understood to be due to Rayleigh scattering. --Deglr6328 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's blue often enough. If the winds don't blow, all it takes is once. SBHarris 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which pictures you've been looking at but really, its almost never blue. like, at all. The only time you could see blue in the sky is during some sunsets in a very small area around the sun (because all the red light is scattered out by the dust) and very rarely due to some cirrus-like ice clouds due to thier small particle size. Astronomy on Mars I don't think any pictures have ever been taken of a blue sky on Mars due to Rayleigh scattering. --Deglr6328 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, much as it pains me to admit it, it appears you are right. Here's an article which claims the Martian sky WOULD be blue IF all the dust and crap were removed. But probably never is.[3]. There's been a lot of arguing over the point over the years. In any case, I think it's pretty well accepted that an oxygen free, dust free atmosphere would still be blue. Though I'm now at a loss for a real-world example. SBHarris 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

At the right altitude (low enough to not be black, but high enough that you still see plenty of sunlight), Jupiter (among other planets with atmospheres) has a blue sky, I believe. (I don't have a web cite handy, though.) Krinsky 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This reference seems to indicate that you're right about blue sky being found at Jupiter's poles in the aerosol-free regions. But it doesn't give ITS references. [4]. SBHarris 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that it wasn't me who wrote the first comment. I don't know a lot about "Rayleigh" anything, so when I saw that my revision had been reverted, I accepted it, as User:Sbharris is a physician with keen interest in physics. Dravick 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My original points continues to be lost here... I did not say that O2 is the only frequency doubling scattering molecule. I'm saying that that N2 is not one; therefore, in the case of the earth, it is the O2 that is causing the lions share of this effect.

btw, after you explain why the sky isn't purple, can you tell us why clouds aren't blue?

I think if someone can understand what a quantum electron configuration means, he won't be confused by whether there is a [He] or a 1s². However, by putting [He], the approach is more systematic (i.e. we do the same thing for all atoms). Dravick 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That last argument goes both ways. I think 1s² is clearer, because otherwise we first have to explain, that with [He] we mean 'the electron configuration of He', which is not clear from the context, and one may have to browse to electron configuration first to find an explanation (I assume the explanation is there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, It's true that the argument goes both way :) Dravick 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article absolutely lacks these two important sections. Let's take a look at hydrogen for preference. It's up to the hilt with necessary data. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states that "Oxygen is slightly soluble in water, but naturally occurring dissolved amounts support all ocean animal life." Is that quite accurate? It would seem that marine mammals and reptiles, at a minimum, depend on the oxygen in air rather than the oxygen dissolved in water. I propose that the sentence be changed to read "...dissolved amounts are enough to support animal life in the oceans" or some such. -- Krinsky 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention anaerobic marine organisms... Itub 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those count as "animal", I wouldn't think, but I went ahead and reworded. -- Krinsky 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the oxygen toxity article a question popped into my head:

Can it be fatal to just breathe in high concentrations of oxygen? I mean, like if someone was walking in everyday like and just happend to have a tank of pure oxygen with them and breathed it in daily. That kind of situation. May this was mentioned in the article but it 11:45 pm where I am, so I may have missed it. "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes.[5] — RJH (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is oxygen so abundant, (abundance rank 3; atomic number 8) for curiosity?? (This question was brought to my attention in response to a one-hour-old edit to Helium. Georgia guy 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason is that the oxygen-16 nucleus is especially stable; see Magic number (physics). --Itub 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. All the really common elements in the universe are just collections of alpha particles (a really stable unit), until you get to the point that the p to n ratio for alphas doesn't serve the large nucleus well. SBHarris 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a chart superimposed on part of the text of the article, making that text unreadable. This appears when viewing any element.

How does one remove the chart so the text can be read?

69.255.232.144 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this in the latest FF or IE browsers. The text wraps perfectly around objects in the article. What browser are you using? Squids'and'Chips 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What this article doesn't appear to tell me, at least so that a lay person like me can understand it, is why Oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form O₂, rather than just solitary oxygen atoms. Can an explanation for this be included? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that might get into too much chemical bonding and valence bond theory. Squids'and'Chips 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Free (solitary) oxygen atoms are extremely reactive, due to having unfilled electron shells, and tend to react with anything, including each other. I suppose that much could be added to the article. Do you think it would be worth doing? SBHarris 03:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on the topic of molecular Oxygen. A wikipedia search on "molecular oxygen" redirects to this article. I think some type of coverage is needed, even if it's in a separate article. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then be WP:BOLD and start writing. It can be the main article for the molecular oxygen section of the element article, when you get done (but please leave the element article alone till you're through and happy with it, then we can decide how much of it needs to be edited down to the main element article). But if we do it here, we really need to do it also for molecular nitrogen, since N₂'s properties are so different than those of most nitrogen compounds. But where do you stop with this kind of thing? Consider carbon and the alkali metals. Most free reactive elements are really quite different from the way they appear in their chemistry. It's just that for a few elements, we get to see the element in nature, as well. As in diamond vs. all those organic compounds. SBHarris 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is because O2 is a diatomic molecule.
Blindman shady 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A new user with a total of 3 edits to their address, user:220.253.43.10 has opined that the section of oxygen uses is written like an advertizement, and to the applications section has top-added the tag: {Advert} Now, on rereading this section, I can't immediately see why such a tag is deserved. Applications described include a number of commercial uses, naturally, but I see no grossly particularly un-encylopedic or inappropriate language describing these. What am I missing? user:220.253.43.10, I challenge you to defend your opinion in this matter! Make a few changes in one paragraph illustrating how you THINK it should instead by written, please. Otherwise, this is not going to be easy to see your POV, or to AGF. SBHarris 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template. Unexplained templates in non-obvious places can be summarily removed IMHO. --Itub 06:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added sections on Biological Role and Production, in accordance with the article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. I was wondering if the article should also have a separate section on atmospheric oxygen and its possible origins. Right now, the information how its increase and fluctuations are connected to the evolution of life on earth is covered under Biological Role. However, the discovery of oxygen atmospheres on some of Jupiter's moons (e.g. Europa and Ganymede) and even around Saturn's rings adds another facet to this. - tameeria 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen atmospheres in Europa and Ganymede? Where did you read that? --Itub 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I found several articles by simply entering "oxygen atmosphere" into Google, for example:

• Nature article about Europa: [6]
• NASA news article about Ganymede: [7]
• BBC news article about Saturn's rings: [8]

- tameeria 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have searched before. It sounded so incredible! Now I see the "trick": it's an atmosphere with an oxygen pressure of 10^-11 atm (that would be called "high vacuum" here on Earth)... Anyway, I would keep the atmospheres of Jupier's moons and Saturn's rings in a section of their own, as it is a completely different situation than the oxygen on Earth. --Itub 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already added some info about O2 in the Marian atmosphere and will add info about other worlds as well. Thanks for the links. :) --mav (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock this, and delete Colbert's page. TheEXIT 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But oxygen really IS a poison. It oxidizes human tissue over time and causes aging AStudent 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And Colbert really IS pwnd by the Wikipedia community. I believe Toxicity section of the article covers the topic adequately. TheEXIT 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is funny that you think it is a contest with Colbert, TheEXIT. PWND? He would joke that he "nailed" the founder of Wikipedia when he appeared on the show. -jfunkryan

Pure O₂ is poisonous.
Blindman shady 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Colbert owns wikipedia on a daily basis. The Elephant thing? Colbert 1223 wikipedia 0 the TRUTH 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What does WP:NPOV have to say? Remember anaerobic bacteria outnumber humans. Peter Grey 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter, while I'm not sure whether you're joking, you actually do, in all seriousness, raise a good point about uses of phrases like "toxic" and "poisonous" in this article; at the very least we should elaborate on the issue of which living creatures suffer from exposure to oxygen in its various forms. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The administrators might want to reference the already existing Wikipedia entry on oxygen toxicity in the protection template. This was an inside joke by Stephen Colbert (an perhaps Jimmy Wales as well) that many viewers who attempted to vandalize the oxygen entry just didn't get. Tkandell 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity seems to be fine. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Librarians was locked too. I love how with a simple image or whisper, Colbert can put a wiki page under seige.68.228.20.64 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Working an add/clarification for scilica/Silicon-Dioxide, I found Silicon's article stating it's percentage by mass in the Earth's crust to be a useful 'emphasizer'... Alas, the similar datum estimate for Oxygen is missing which is a shame, as they are presumably one and two by mass occurence... thus I opine, T'would be good to have in the introduction if anyone can run it down from local references. Cheers! // FrankB 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of detail on the role of oxygen in cellular respiration, it would seem only appropriate to have additional detail on photosynthesis in that first paragraph. For example I was surprised not to see the terms "photosystem2" "p680" "chrolophyll" "thallakoid" "choloplast", when "mitochondria", "Adenosine Triphosphate ATP", and "oxidative phosphorylation" are used. Ryancormack 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. I suppose it's missing because we're carnocentric as well as anthropocentric (i.e., industrial uses). And in plants, oxygen's often (not always) a waste product, no? Plants don't need elemental O2, but get it by splitting water photosynthetically. If you know which plants can get along without it entirely, or can put in a few sentences of general info on the topic, that would be really helpful in the bio section. SBHarris 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'Biological role' isn't a good fit for a photosynthesis subsect because free oxygen is a waste product. A small subsect at 'Production' already exists and I plan to expand it. --mav (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Subsect expanded. --mav (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no details to say that there has been damage done to this page.

219.89.103.84 07:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess; might have something to do with preventing anons with potty mouths from editing it... --mav 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The first diagram on the left of the page shows a structure of oxygen as O=O. This is incorrect, as it implies that the regular form of oxygen is a singlet. While it is true that that might be the way the structure of O2 is drawn in high-school courses, we have to be clear to explain on Wikipedia that the real structure of oxygen is more properly (although still incompletely) described as .O-O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bond order is 2, and the strength of the bond is about 116 for a mole of oxygen bonds, whereas it's only 80 in C-C and 78 in C-O- bonds. So that speaks to me of at least more than a single bond in O2. [9]. It's a triple bond like nitrogen (227 kJ/mole), with the addition of two extra electons in antibonding orbitals, weakening it by half a bond each. 2/3 of 227 would be 151 kcal/mole for the total bond, or 76 kcal per bond-- very close to the C-C and C-O values, but still a lot less than the total bond in O2 (though perhaps the total is a bit more than 116). From strengh alone it looks like about 1.5 bonds. So it's a minor problem. But not one to be solved by viewing it as a single bond. SBHarris 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The article looks reasonably good from a completeness perspective, but has several issues with its writing and style, Done as well as the lack of key reference citations, Done that it does not meet the Good Article criteria at the present time. I would suggest a good, thorough copyedit to clean up the grammar and writing, bringing it up to a more professional and easier to understand format. Done Watch out for sentence like, "A billion degrees are required for two oxygen nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion to form heavier the nuclei of silicon, phosphorus and sulfur." "To form heavier the nuclei?" Huh? That just doesn't sound right. Done

There are two citation needed tags that must be addressed prior to GA status. The last section on 'combustion hazard' has zero citations.

Only 1. Hope somebody will fix it.Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 DoneDone.Pyrotec (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several manual of style issues throughout. Most notably, 'see also' links in sections should be placed at the top of the section, and indented, not at the end. It might also help to look at the names of some of the subsection titles; some of them appear to be quite long, and could be shortened to be more concise, and more descriptive of their content.

 DoneDone.Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest renaming 'characteristics' to 'chemical properties', as it would be more descriptive of its contents. The isotopes and allotropes sections would probably also be better if they were included as subsections within 'chemical properties' as well.

 Donenot sure isotopes fit within the chemical properties topicNergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'see also' section is getting quite long. Links that are previously referred to in the text can be removed from this list.

 DoneDone.Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The notes/references format is fine, but the commentary at the beginning of these sections is unnecessary (e.g. "Full reference information for Cook, Daintith, Emsley and Gribbin given in the references section" and "Major works cited"). When citations are used this way in wikipedia, the 'notes' section simply contains a listing of all inline citations used, in order cited. The 'references' section only contains a listing of all of the references that appeared under 'notes', in alphabetical order by author name. No additional commentary should be included in these sections. See WP:CITE for more information on formatting references.

 DoneOk, but I am not sure weather less clarification is better so I still left the comments as hidden text.Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for linkspam in the 'external links' section. The link to the chartofthenuclides.com site appears to be spam.

 DoneDone. Chopped out less relevant links too.Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, this provides a good explanation of the issues with this article. Once these issues are fixed, and the article is cleaned up, I believe it can be promoted to GA status. Please note that I did not explicitly list all copyediting issues, as there are too many, and the overall prose and text should be copyedited as a whole, rather than listing specific issues and expecting someone to add little green checkmarks as they're fixed. Done

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done so far everybody! You all have really helped to clean-up the article (including my additions). I'm going to make a big effort this weekend to fill in the few remaining holes (see ToDo under the Version 1.0 Editorial Team template above). After that, I'd like to put this through Peer Review and then FAC. --mav (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should go through all the linked references and add the 'accessdate' before FAC. Done Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The article now meets the Good Article criteria, and will be promoted. Good work!

Could somebody make them smaller? They are too large and take up space. Some of the LATeX symbols I don't recognize. SBHarris 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd - that looked fine on my tablet PC but was huge on my desktop. Fixed. --mav (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have disambiged quite a few links (to be checked). However, shell still needs a disambig. Randomblue (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shell done.Pyrotec (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked your disambigs - they are all fine, a good job done.Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - thanks! I don't like doing that. :) --mav (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues are tangled together in this section - (1) organic compounds contining oxygen, and (2) reactions with oxygen of organics NOT containing oxygen. Can we please keep these separate?

Secondly, in the reaction below:

(C₆H₅-CH(CH₃)₂) in the below reaction is commonly derived from petroleum.

C₆H₅-CH(CH₃)₂ + O₂ -> C₆H₅-COOH(CH₃)₂ -> (CH₃)₂CO + C₆H₅OH

Could we please have the names of the compounds? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the compounds are supposed to be, but C₆H₅-CH(CH₃)₂ looks like cumene (isopropylbenzene) and C₆H₅OH appears to be phenol. The intermediate appears to be an acetate and (CH₃)₂CO is acetone. - tameeria (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears the reaction refers to the Cumene process? Still guessing, but it looks right... - tameeria (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not checked which author added it to the article: it is the cumene process but renamed as below reaction and Cumene hydroperoxide was renamed to its chemical formula. I've removed the renames.Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these just sprinkled around randomly? Yes I know that they are for, but I question why they appear where they do; and not in other places in this article where I would also expect to see them.Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I go through sections of the article and place tags where it looks like it would need it. I am not going through the entire article, so that's why they might appear on other places where they should. The point of the tags is not because they are disputed, but because this article seems to be going for a FAC and it is easier to reference stuff if tags are placed at the most ardent statements. If you think the tags are inappropiate go ahead and delete them. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

General

This is a followup on my FAC comments, as it'll be easier to expand the comments here. Comment copied from FAC:

Do you have a specific example in mind? All the technical terms there are allready linked to other articles for detailed explanations. Shouldn't that be enough? Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was mainly thinking of these sentences: It is a group 16, nonmetallic, divalent element that can form binary compounds (known as oxides) with almost all other elements. The valence of oxygen is 2, while the most common oxidation state is -2. On Earth it is usually bonded to other elements covalently or ionically..

All the technical terms are indeed linked, and I'm not (trying not to, at least) advocating dumbing down the article. But from the average readers perspective, are those details really important enough to be the second to fourth sentence in the article? The rest of the lead gives a fairly good overview, but those sentenced popped up as being rather detailed for a four paragraph overview for the average reader. henrik•talk 12:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the position of the element should definately be in the first paragraph. The information about oxides, valence and oxidation state are important/intrisinc enough to go in the first paragraph, but they could be placed in the last paragraph of the intro (the one about compounds) too. The bonding can probably go at the beggining of the compounds paragraph. Any other opinions? Nergaal (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Production

While we're at it, bits of the process of producing oxygen occur at two or three locations in the article. It would make a lot of sense to clean this up and make a single, crisp and authoritative statement.Plantsurfer (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthropogenic and photosynthetic production were in the same section until the photosynthetic part was moved to the ==Biological role== section. I'm still not sure if that is a good fit, since the purpose of ==Biological role== is to explain how an element is used in living things but O2 is really just a waste product of photosynthesis. And I wouldn't really consider nucleosynthesis to be 'production' since production is most often used in the context of freeing an element from other elements. Creating the element in the first place is really a separate issue that I think it best kept in the isotopes section given that different isotopes are created through different methods. --mav (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rethought this and now agree that having photosynthesis in ==Biological role== is a good fit because it is tightly bound to abundance of O2 in the atmosphere and cellular respiration. Having all that in the same section (soon to be its own article with a summary left here), makes a lot of sense to me. --mav (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

History section

The article states "Using a cascade method, Swiss chemist and physicist Raoul Pierre Pictet evaporated liquid sulfur dioxide in order to liquefy [[carbon dioxide]], which in turn was evaporated to cool oxygen enough to liquefy it." Surely this is incorrect! Evaporation of carbon dioxide at STP will only cool oxygen to -78^oC, more than 100^oC short of the target for liquefying oxygen!(-183^oC). This process needs a little explanation!Plantsurfer (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of the reference that says that, but remember:

1. your phase transition points are given at 1 atmosphere! the text mentions 320 atm.
2. text says -140 degrees, about 50 degrees short of the regular CO2 limit
3. if I am not wrong, CO2 has no liquid phase STP; it sublimates
4. you may obtain mixtures with boiling temperatures lower than any of the boiling temperatures of the separate constituents.the mentioned -140 falls between -78 and -183
5. maybe the liquid oxygen was more of a mixture with the liquid CO2

anyways, the original statement deserves probably a clarification note. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that based on Daintith 1994, p.707 as read via Google Scholar. I'm still waiting for the book to arrive from Amazon so I can't recheck (I'm over my Google Scholar page view limit for the book). Adding pressure may account for the discrepancy but we need to check all our sources to make sure. --mav (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The article reads: "The telegram reads "Oxygen liquefied to-day under 320 atmospheres and 140 degrees of cold" What temperature scale would that be on, and how was the temperature achieved using an SO2/CO2 cascade? I think I am right in saying, referring to the phase diagram for CO2, that at 140 degrees of cold and 320 atmospheres, CO2 will be a solid, and not doing a whole lot of evaporating. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I commented that part out; it was from a webpage that wasn't exactly a great source. A better source is needed to check this. --mav (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Compounds section

The section on compounds contains some good points, but reads like a bunch of random facts. It needs a theme, and a logical thread and purpose. Is there anybody out there who can bring it to life??Plantsurfer (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That first subsection (now a set of stub sections) is a bit of a mess. It is largely what was there before I started to expand that section. Now that it has some structure (thanks Pyrotec!), I think we should concentrate on finishing the expansion, cleaning it up, summarizing it per WP:SS and then moving the detailed version of the section to Oxygen compounds for further expansion. But we can't summarize until we have the content and structure set. I'll help by adding some info on water and hydrogen bonding (hopefully by this weekend ; but don't wait for me). --mav (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This has since been cleaned up. We just need to tie things together by putting the text in the context of how they form (reactions, esp redox). --mav (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Final clean-up

I'm now mostly happy with the article's coverage and have started to move excess detail to its daughter articles per Wikipedia:Summary style and FAC guidelines (this article is already a bit over the recommended top prose size of 50KB). I'm already done with the Precautions, Allotropes and Isotopes sections and will work on other sections later. Please make any final expansion/edits you think are needed to the Compounds or Structure sections before I do the same with them. All further expansion of those subtopics should occur at the daughter articles once the detail is moved and summaries left in their place. --mav (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cellular oxidations

The "Cellular oxidations" section reads a bit like a random collection of various biological effects. It has a "see also" link to aerobic respiration which redirects to cellular respiration, but the section is actually mainly a combination of respiration (physiology)/gas exchange and reactive oxygen species/respiratory burst with only two sentences containing information on cellular respiration thrown in. ("Molecular oxygen, O2, is essential for cellular respiration in all aerobic organisms." and "Oxygen is also used as an electron acceptor in mitochondria to generate chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) during oxidative phosphorylation.") Oxidative phosphorylation (high school topic) should probably get more weight in this section than reactive oxygen species. - tameeria (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. Please expand that part if you have time, if not, then I’ll dust off my biology text to give it a go. I think the best course of action is to expand that subsect and then summarize the ==Biological role== section and move the detail to Biological role of oxygen (or something like that) where it can be further expanded. This article needs to be a top level gateway to articles that expand on points introduced here. I could easily see the geologic bit shorted to one good-sized paragraph. Same with photosynthesis. --mav (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

so what is going to happen to this sub-section? expand or merge it with the previous one?Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to fix some of this. A previous author was under the impression that CO2 is carried around in heme at the O2 binding site (wrong), and an explanation of where CO2 is really carried, is complicated. I've fixed it, but there might NOW be more info on CO2 than is good for an O2 article. See what you think. I've also gone though and killed a few other bits of off topic discussion, but ironically here, in the process of correcting bad info, I might have ended up adding some off topic info of my own on CO2 transport! SBHarris 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We needn't go into any detail about CO2 transport in the blood. So I put some of your explanation in the ref note. That should take care of the issue. --mav (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

says something about O
₈ without referencing it. anybody thinks we should take a closer look to that? Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After searching through the web, I created the page Solid oxygen. If you are interested take a look at it and maybe make some edits.Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a sort of LEAD summary. Fine. The second is now the history of the word, and could go second, or at the end of the LEAD. The 3rd is abundance in the universe, then earth, then in life, with major compounds mentioned along the way. Last is the paragraph about free oxygen, which is rare except in the atmosphere, and of course very important in and of itself. Also the info given on it in the lead was about a paragraph's worth, but distributed all over, so I've collected it HERE. See what you think. I think it segues more naturally now, although I still don't know quite what to do about the naming info. Does it even belong in the LEAD? The discovery issues are too complex to be sumarized here in the LEAD, which I presume is why they have been put off, downward... SBHarris 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a further refactor; history now at the end and a bit expanded. I also think that I was able to present the discovery part well in the limited space. --mav (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK folks - I now believe that this article is ready for FAC. So unless there is an objection, I will nominate this article for FAC on or a bit after 12 AM UTC on Tuesday. --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Impressive job, all. A breath of fresh air ;). No article is ever finished, but this one by now is as good as you'll find in any encyclopedia, and if you include the hyperlinks, far better. I wonder if it's possible to do this well with most of the other elements? Probably not, inasmuch as (with possible exceptions like carbon and hydrogen) there just isn't as much important to talk about. SBHarris 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL and thanks for the help! I think we can get all element articles featured, but you are correct, few others will be as difficult or need to be as long. The most difficult will be the ones that are both vital to life and are marked as WP:VITAL to the encyclopedia. --mav (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unlinked a number of terms in the Lead section. Please see my comments in the FAC review. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cluster needs disambig Randomblue (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, can someone help me fix reference 37. Randomblue (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long the first sentence has contained the phrase with an an atomic number of. I've only just spotted it, & deleted both ans as well as the of. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago: [10]. --Itub (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear Watson! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)