Talk:Condensation reaction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Rated "high" as high school/SAT biology content (dehydration synthesis redirects here) - tameeria 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) Rated "high" as high school/SAT biology content (dehydration synthesis redirects here) - tameeria 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[edit] Merge suggestion
I agree. I see no logical reason to have a second article named Condensation (organic chemistry). Probably the person who started it was not aware that this article already exists. Dirac66 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree user Dirac is perfectly right, though a redirection page ought to remain. I maintain that in the Condensation article we ought to have some reference to chemical condensation. From The Chemical Age etc a new definition was found, which I shall fully reference asap. LouisBB (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
On further reading it has become clear that The Chemical Age etc reference is not up to date, but has its definition become invalide?
- In polymerisation there is often no loss of a small molecular weight substance,
- Endo-condensation and exo-condensation are not acknowledged by the new definition, whilst there are examples for both in The chemical age ... book. For endo-condensation the conversion of suberone to tropane, and for exo-condensation the conversion of anthraquinone to benzanthrone.
Further, the question remains, what new title ought we choose? I do not know of inorganic chemistry examples, so I would prefer the Condensation(organic chemistry) title. Perhaps a lectoral decision is needed on these issues. LouisBB (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My comments on the above: 1.The main point I think is to have this information on one page instead of two. A redirect page for the second title is a good idea.
2.For the title I see two reasons to prefer Condensation Reaction: a) The word Reaction makes clear that we are not talking about the condensation of a vapour to a liquid, as in distillation (a very common procedure in laboratory organic chemistry). b) There are inorganic examples as well as organic, for example the formation of silicates and polyphosphates as stated in the article.
3.If you want opinions on the definition in The Chemical Age, it would be best to quote it here. I for one do not know this source book.
4.There are two types of polymerization reactions - see the article on polymerization. Condensation or step-growth polymerizations usually involves loss of a small molecule, with some exceptions such as polyurethane. Addition or chain-growth polymerizations usually do not, but they are not the subject of the article. In any case this is not relevant to the question of whether to merge.
5.The endo/exo question is a specialized topic which might be included at the end of the article, but again this is not relevant to the question of whether to merge. Dirac66 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No strong feelings which way, I agree merging, and I don't think anybody is arguing against it so far. Now with a note in the Condensation article the existence of this subject is obvious and it can be found easily. If there is a redirect from the other title even better. LouisBB (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have carried out the merge. I transferred all the text from Condensation (organic chemistry) to Condensation reaction, and placed a redirect at Condensation (organic chemistry). I then divided the new text in two, with the definitions in the introduction and the examples at the end. Both sections require editing to eliminate duplication etc.
Also I have now read the Chemical Age definition. I hadn't realized this reference was quite so old - much has changed in chemistry since 1924. The terms exo- and endo- have other meanings now, especially in stereochemistry. I'll check a more recent organic chem text to see if this distinction is maintained under another name. Also, the statement that condensation is "almost exclusively used for those reactions in which union is effected between carbon atoms" is certainly not true today (if it was in 1924), as many examples involves formation of esters, and amides or peptides.
More editing to come soon. Dirac66 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested plan for merged introduction
First, the "endo" and "exo" mentioned by LouisBB are now called "intramolecular" and "intermolecular" respectively, and are unrelated to what is now called endo-exo isomerism. Since the use of "endo" and "exo" in this sense is quite archaic (the reference cited dates from 1924), I propose to distinguish the two types of condensation using the modern terms. I also propose to eliminate mention of the 1924 reference - I did ask above to see it but I didn't know it was that old.
With this in mind, I suggest we use the 1994 IUPAC definition to which we can add the distinction between the intermolecular and intramolecular condensations, using the modern terminology. We can also note that intramolecular forms a ring, and add a second example, perhaps formation of a lactone.
Finally note that I have integrated the Applications section (from this article) and the list of examples (from the merged content). Dirac66 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Dirac66. I agree with all you have done and the view that some more editing is needed. (eg Ref1=Ref3, and the first para is repeated) I agree with the idea of getting rid of the ancient reference, BUT proof is needed that the statement, "condensation always includes the release of a low molecular weight substance" is valid (I always knew it that way, and the reference I quoted was a surprise to me as well) unless an internal condensation can occur without that? The deletion idea is supported by the fact that with the old meaning there is no sense in the two different types of polymerisation. LouisBB (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have now revised the intro as above. I looked at your examples and decided to use the Dieckmann condensation as an intramolecular example. The article on Dieckmann condensation has a good figure which I copied into this article; the only problem is that the title does not appear for some reason.
As for the phrase "with or without elimination", I have never seen this in more modern texts. It appears the 1924 reference may have been including addition or complexation reactions. I think it is best not to refer to such old sources except for historical articles. Dirac66 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
