Talk:Chlorine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chlorine has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Chlorine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Slovak language Wikipedia.
Chlorine is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:59, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 05:25, 23 Jun 2005).

Contents

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from T7.html Los Alamos National Laboratory - Chlorine. Additional text was taken directly from, USGS Periodic Table - Chlorine, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

[edit] Gas image

I noted the comment "gas, doesn't look like much" with the picture provided. The best pictures I've seen of chlorine are from leaking railroad cars. See http://www.hazmat101.com/, click on the 'files' link in the colored bar at the top and look at the power point file in the November 2003 section titled "Rail tank car chlorine leak photos". The last slide is especially good - the yellow-green color is particularly good. Also note the gas hanging to the ground and not pluming into the air.swc 21:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I can check with my employer about getting a good photo in the lab of both liquid and gas phases.

[edit] Chlorine-36

The Cl-36 (36Cl) info at [1] has several differences from that in [2]. (SEWilco 07:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

Subsurface production by muon capture of 40-Ca? Where do the muons come from in such scenario? --Shaddack 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Muons are generated in the atmosphere due to reactions between cosmic rays and air molecules. Muons have a relatively low interaction cross section with matter and can penetrate quite deeply. Many underground neutrino detectors count only neutrinos coming from below (and thus having passed through a few thousand km of Earth) because there is too much muon background from above. Icek 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


although people don't know it ,but when chlorine is unleashed it distorts the ozone layer. for more info or that didn't answer your q email me at kat71995@htomail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.201.93 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine + Alcohol = Explosion?

Is this true? --Arima 02:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, chlorine is a powerful oxidizing agent, and alcohol burns in an oxygen atmosphere, so I see no reason why it wouldn't burn in a chlorine atmosphere. I suppose you'd get alcohol to explode in chlorine the same way you'd get it to explode in oxygen: mix alcohol vapor or aerosolized alcohol with pure chlorine gas, then provide an ignition source. The required temperature might be low enough for spontaneous ignition at room temperature, but I don't know. --Carnildo 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You might be referring to that (in)famous video [3] where some young idiots have a plastic bottle in which they "add the chlorine to the alcohol" and "shake it up hella good" (and nearly kill themselves with the resulting explosion, it looks like). However, what they're probably using is the kind of so-called "chlorine" used in pools as disinfectant, which is actually sodium hypochlorite. And it does seem to explode pretty well. --Bob Mellish 19:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (Note: 206.131.130.132 (talk · contribs) edited my comment above to change sodium hyprochlorite to calcium hypochlorite, with the comment "Re-Corrected by SINYpyro."
  1. Please don't change other people's comments on talk pages.
  2. There are a number of bleach-type compounds commonly but incorrectly called "chlorine", including both calcium and sodium hypochlorite. --Bob Mellish 17:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'ts sad how many people there are out there who change what people have written. I feel for you. --Ruff 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From the video, it appears to be some sort of pressure explosion, not combustion. Anyone know what the reaction/gas produced is?
  • I have a feeling that it is hydrazine, but I'm not in the least sure. Ruff Bark away! 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hydrazine is definately believable, a friend and I have been messing around with chlorine/alcohol quite a bit lately, and the resulting gas is highly flammable (like rocket fuel =]) I can also verify that it causes an explosion, but only because of the release of the gas, and I think it's a similar reaction to the chlorine/ammonia one that produces hydrazine.
Hydrazine is unlikely because there was no nitrogen compound involved in the experiment.

151.197.54.195 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like references are the order of the day here?

It seems to me the first task for the collaboration is references. I can see about asking my Chemistry teacher if he knows any good, you know, chemistry books that'll have a bunch of detail on Chlorine, because they'll probably just repeat what's already in this article yet it'll certainly go a long way. However, thinking about Chlorine, could not the more social aspects of chlorine be emphasized, you know, maybe a picture of a pool with chlorine used to keep it clean, more detail on how chlorine was sometimes used in gas form as a weapon of war in WW1 if I remember correctly, etc. etc., all that stuff kind of is notable for Chlorine after all. Homestarmy 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some information about chlorine and WWI from the Use of poison gas in World War I article. It has an OK amount of info but there is still a long way to go. As a suggestion I think we should model it after some of these articles: Acetic acid Helium, Hydrochloric acid, Technetium. Tarret 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety (a.o.)

This is an article about an important element, chlorine. It has been rated A-class. But it has accumulated much information which is anecdotal (mainly concerning safety, but also about external organizations/suppliers). As was done with aniline, hydrazine and hydrogen sulfide, much of that infomation has been removed, or compacted into one or two sentences. For more safety data one can consult an MSDS sheet. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diaphragm cell electrolysis

The following request was placed on the main page by user 72.27.87.149 (talk) at 00:50, 6 February 2007. I'm moving it to the talk page (see below). Karl Hahn (T) (C) 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give step by step method for this extraction process

1) The starting material is saturated brine (salt = NaCl solution), sometimes obtained by drilling a well into an underground salt dome and circulating water through this well. Ca and Mg contaminations are removed by precipitation with sodium carbonate. The brine is fed into the anode compartment of the cell, where chloride ions release the extra electron to the anode and are converted to chlorine gas. Anode and cathode compartment are separated by an asbestos diaphragm, which is formed directly on the wire screen cathode by a paper making technique (pulp of asbestos slurried in water and filtered on the cathode screen). It has the consistency of several layers of wet paper towels. By pumping brine into the anode compartment, the liquid level there is raised 10 to 30 cm above the level of the catholyte, causing a slow percolation of brine / anolyte through the diaphragm. Masstransport is both hydraulic and electric driven : Most important is that the hydraulic flow (percolation) should be enough to prevent the electricly driven transport of OH- ions from reaching the anode compartment, where they would cause side reactions (hypochlorite formation). Both driving forces for Na+ ions are in the same direction (toward the cathode); for Cl- ions it is in opposite directions (i.e. electric potential pulls Cl- toward the anode), but percolation is predominant, resulting in a catholyte containing 10 % NaOH plus 16 % unreacted NaCl. Cathode reaction is decomposition of water into hydrogen gas and OH- ions. The OH- ions together with Na+ ions coming through the diaphragm form NaOH.

  As the catholyte is evaporated, much of the NaCl contaminant precipitates and is recycled. The final product still contains about 1 % NaCl plus some hypochlorite and chlorate, limiting its usefulness.151.197.54.195 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern use as a Chem. weapon?

Suggest somebody with more time and knowhow than I look into this. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Appears to be the second or third such use of Chlorine gas as a chemical weapon by terrorists/insurgents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.57.200 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Downgraded article quality

Thoughg this article is good in all other ways I feel that the amount of references is insufficient for thje size of the article and the article should use the {{cite web}} citation template. see Argon for more details. 74.116.113.241 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine as a chemical weapon

I've seen the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon has been mentioned in world war I but it needs to be mentioned as separated segment in this article mentioning also the recent use of chlorine during suicide attacks in Iraq (march 17).

thank you Minako-Chan* 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-Class

GA class is not part of project assessment scales, and GAs are not tracked by WP Bot 1.0. The assessment level has been set to B class. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why do the templates still take a GA rank assessment? Homestarmy 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverted as per the WP Bot discussions. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:Chem assessment was the predecessor (actually THE original) of the current widely used assessment. Good Articles have been invented much later, as a qualifier to B-Class, just as FA is to A-Class. Since the Chemicals wikiproject has been about only the core worklist for two years up until recently, we stuck to not using the GA class in our assessment. For the core worklist, we formally still do. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A-Class

This article is of high quality. I propose it for promotion to A-Class on the our WP:Chem A-Class peer review page. Please comment/support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Industrial Scale Production

I work in such a plant and I am willing to provide as much detail without divulging trade secrets about the operation of such a facility. It is my second attempt at editing here so please edit/rewrite so it looks professional.

Actually your contribution is excellent, I read it only a minute or so after you put the first part in. It could use a little bit of wikification, but the meat of the contribution is what counts, and it's spectacular. Trusilver 07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Content is great. But, is it more applicable in chloralkali process rather than here? --Rifleman 82 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine as a chemical weapon

The sub-headings "World War I" and "Iraq War" seem out of place in the "Applications and uses" section. The use of chlorine as a chemical weapon is already discussed in the "History" section. Perhaps it would be appropriate just to provide links to "World War I" and "Iraq War" under "History" and move the text on these items from "Applications and uses" to the linked articles. Indeed, chemical warfare is hardly a significant application of chlorine nowadays, even if hostile acts involving Cl2 do still occur occasionally. FranklinJ 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Re-reviewing this article, which was originally reviewed on December 9, 2005, to see if it continues to meet the GA criteria. After a few minor revisions, I believe it continues to meet the criteria, and it will be kept. However, there are a couple of gaps in the referencing and citations (nothing too major), that should be addressed. Inline citations are notably absent from the isotopes section, and the industrial production section. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine and cancer

A subject for investigation:

Could cholorine in drinking water contribute to the high rate of cancer in our society? I'm told that the EPA says drinking and showering in chlorinated water increases your risk of cancer by a whopping 93%. Is it true? That cancer is an illusive health concern concurrent with the nearly universal use of cholorine to disinfect drinking water may be a cause and effect relationship that has been overlooked, understated, or ignored.

Could there be better ways to disinfect our water supply? As a former backpacker, small amounts of tincture of iodine were used to disinfect water from suspect sources. Since a small amount of iodine is healthy for a functioning thyroid, this could be an improved way to treat our municipal water supplies. Flouride has been added to some drinking water to reduce tooth decay. Why not use it or iodine to disinfect with? If chlorine is causing cancer as alleged and seemingly indicated, this needs attention.

Chemotherapy, radiation treatments, and all else used to combat cancer are not prefered means if cancer can be reduced or controlled by removing chlorine from our water supply.

Al Williams, Oak Harbor, Washington 4.242.141.9 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because both iodine and chlorine are halogens, which are powerful oxidizing agents. Iodine is convenient to carry around as it is a solid but can be made into a solution. Iodine is, relative to chlorine, very uncommon. Iodine compounds (iodides) are very expensive, whereas chlorine compounds (chlorides) are s cheap as evaporating seawater. From there, you run electricity through a solution and generate chlorine gas and lye, which if the vessel is built correctly can be seperated. If allowed to mix, you make bleach. Also, chlorine can evaporate from water while iodine cannot. Large amounts of iodine are not good for you.

Fluorine is the most reactive element. It is added to water as compounds that are not oxidizers. Fluorine gas itself is insanely hazardous to produce, store, and transport. Fluorides are extremely toxic above the trace quantities used to slow tooth decay. Fluorine also reacts with essentially everything including water, turning itself into(non-disinfecting) fluorides and probably rapidly into insoluble calcium and magnesium fluoride. By comparison, chlorine dissolves forming small quantities of hypochlorous acid (powerful disinfecting agent)by dissociation. It tends to form small amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons like chloroform which are not exactly healthy.

I would like to see where you quoted that statistic from. Has it occured to you that if this were between two populations, it is likely that the one with no chlorine and less cancer was having quite a few deaths and shortened lifespans from contaminated drinking water before the people could develop cancer? It may be a statistic, but it's flawed logic.

Dormroomchemist (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine portrayed as an evildoer ?

the bad uses of chlorine are put first in this article. i love chlorine, it is my favorite element on the perioidic table except for fluioirine but thats ok, and it is sad that such a great element as Chloioirine gets such a bad name in the first few paragraphs of this article. yes wikipedia is very nice, and i know that, but chlorien is such a great element and this is so sad that it is portrayed as an evildoer in the first few paragraphes of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.198.122 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I have no personal feelings towards the element itself, it does seem to make more sense to focus on its chemistry and physical properties first. I think this article could benefit from some re-ordering of items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.212.16 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reordered its use in wars to the "Application" section. It seems more suited here. Hwwever, now the history section seems a little lacking. To any expert on it, it would be appreciated if you would expand this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] valence electrons?

Now you said that Chlorine has 7e-, but im not getting the concept of valence electrons. If Chlorine has 7e- then how many valence electrons do the transition metals have?(If they even have the same number of e-)

68.37.65.33 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The number of valence electrons any transition metal has depends on its group number, just count the number of rows over for most of the elements.

Also a confusion of my own, how does a chlorine allergy work, isn't chlorine in small mounts an essential substance in the human body? 24.65.87.238 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine allergy?

It seems ridiculous to me that chlorine would be an allergen. Such people could not consume salt at all, and would have no stomach acid. Is it possible that the allergy the article refers to is actually an allergy to Chloramine, which is also commonly used as a disinfectant (but is less corrosive than chlorine)? Scythe33 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I also question the 'allergen' claim, as chlorine is an essential element for animal life. (Gastic acid and salt). If the claim is related to pure Cl and not HCl or salts, then it's really more an issue of toxicity than allergy.Tysalpha (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I am not used to adding comments here. But I want to say I was reading this page and saw the bit about the allergy. I once did an allergy test at an hospital and I found out I am allergic to chlorine. This means, according to my personal experience, that I get a stronger response to chlorine (just the gas, ofcourse... not the element or chloride ion in compounds like salt) than most people. Whenever I swim in a swimming pool with chlorine in it, my eyes will get irritated after just an hour or so and breathing gets harder. I also get nauseous from the 'smell' of bleach-like cleaning stuffs. I do not have any problem with drinking or touching tap water. Maybe, tap water doesn't have chlorine in it where I live (Netherlands) or it has so little I don't even feel it, or, the reason I made this comment: this piece on wikipedia might be wrong. - 10 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.222.38 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest deleting link to 'Computational Chemistry Wiki'

When I visited this site it's a base install of media-wiki with no content and no configuration. It smacks of someone with good intentions putting their site out there as a resource but not following through to make it a site of actual merit that would justify a link in the article. I am not going to remove it myself as it may be that this site is in some sort of server or formate transition and perhaps in the past if has been something of value. I'm commenting so that it might come to the attention of those who would know and make a good judgment call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.233.199 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be some good stuff there, but apparently their database crashed or something like that. I don't know how long they've had this problem, but I noticed it a few weeks ago. --Itub (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of Chlorine production

I can't remember where, but I once read that the PVC and other chlorinated products are relatively cheap because chlorine is the unavoidable co-product of NaOH/KOH production, and there is no environmentally safe way to dispose of it other than to turn it into things like PVC and bleach etc. Certainly, water purification is major user of "raw" chlorine gas, but this application doesn't consume enough to keep up with the supply produced as a byproduct of lye production. So chemical companies figured out that they stuff this excess chlorine into plastic (PVC), pesticides (DDT, cyclodienes, etc.), and aromatic (PCBs) and thus created markets for these products. Or at that's the story I've heard. This might be totally wrong, and I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but it does sound plausable—after all, what are you going to do with all that Cl2 you get as a byproduct of the Chlor-alkali process. Anyone have any info on this? Yilloslime (t) 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)