Talk:Ammonia

Actual image of ammonia

This might seem a bit too obvious, but the article doesn't actually have an image of liquid ammonia. All I see are molecules or reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.104.214 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Moderate or weak?

The article says

Ammonia is moderately basic

but two paragraphs later, states

Ammonia is considered to be a weak base.

Christopher Ursich (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ammonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=27245&t=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207092554/http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/2007/Olson2_NH3.pdf to http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/2007/Olson2_NH3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104165051/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=3a1341f81fbe762466a07d33da2361fb;rgn=div8;view=text;node=29%3A5.1.1.1.8.8.33.11;idno=29;cc=ecfr to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=3a1341f81fbe762466a07d33da2361fb;rgn=div8;view=text;node=29%3A5.1.1.1.8.8.33.11;idno=29;cc=ecfr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Fertilizer

"30% of agricultural nitrogen in the United States is applied as anhydrous ammonia".

How does that actually work, then ? Spraying a boiling, toxic, cryogenic liquid all over the farm would seem to be a process fraught with difficulties, unless the aim is some kind of re-enactment of Flanders, 1917. How do they actually do this ? Lathamibird (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ammonia use

Under the heading Fertilizer under Uses, it states that "Globally, approximately 88% (as of 2014) of ammonia is used as fertilizers..." and cites the US Mineral Commodities Summaries. In this paper though, it says "Approximately 88% of apparent domestic ammonia consumption was for fertilizer use" domestic meaning the USA. The USA has yet to conquer the rest of the world so for now I assume "globally" also refers to countries outside of the USA.

The ref in fact gives a figure only for US use and not for the global situation. The text has been corrected, and the figure of 88% remains unchanged as of 2019 according to USGS. Maybe someone can find a reliable number for global use as fertilizer (some UN document?). Piperh (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Azane

Ammonia is the simplest azane, but is it really alternatively named as azane? Also, the term azane is not listed in the other name section. JSR (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, and the systematic name of Ammonia should be Nitrane instead of its hypernym azane. I will change it, but if if Nitrane is somehow still incorrect, please change it. BrightSunMan (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

BrightSunMan Please do not change article details based on what you "think" is true. You must use reliable sources and Wikipedia even has a whole article on azane which gives details. I have reverted your change. Most editors would not have noticed your addition here to a section last edited in 2017 but I did because I checked your contributions after your comment about azulene. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That is OK, but it is not logically possible to name a compound by its group. In this case I think it is better to just remove the systematic name, since the name azane itself is misleading, and let the readers to figure out the correct name themselves if they are interested. BrightSunMan (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ammonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr%3Bsid%3D3a1341f81fbe762466a07d33da2361fb%3Brgn%3Ddiv8%3Bview%3Dtext%3Bnode%3D29%3A5.1.1.1.8.8.33.11%3Bidno%3D29%3Bcc%3Decfr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211115518/http://www.inrs.fr/fichetox/ft16.html to http://www.inrs.fr/fichetox/ft16.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Imperial Units

I'm not sure of the Wikipedia policy on SI Units, but in a science article is it really necessary to transpose the estimated annual production into Imperial units. Especially a unit like the Ton where the obsolete English unit isn't even the same as the unit used in North America.

Andypreston (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ammonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119084300/http://airgasspecialtyproducts.com/Libraries/Aqua_Ammonia_Technical_Data_Manual/Physical_Properties.sflb.ashx to http://www.airgasspecialtyproducts.com/Libraries/Aqua_Ammonia_Technical_Data_Manual/Physical_Properties.sflb.ashx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ammonia triple point

The Ammonia article lists the triple point as:

(Triple point at 6.060 kPa, 195.4 K)

while triple point has a table, with the entry for ammonia as:

195.40 K (−77.75 °C)

6.076 kPa (0.05997 atm)

Identical temps, but slightly different pressures.

Can someone sort out which is correct and change the other one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

NIST [1] supports the 6.060 kPa figure. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Revising the "synthesis and production" section Suggestion

I'd like to see the "Synthesis and Production" section revised. I believe some of the content is unnecessary, should be rearranged, or would be better suited for other sections/articles (this was one of my previous edits: [[2]]). For instance:

• "Because of its many uses, ammonia is one of the most highly produced inorganic chemicals. Dozens of chemical plants worldwide produce ammonia".

I think this should be deleted/minimized, or at least should have a more exact figure for the number of plants and a citation.

• "As of 2012 the global production of ammonia produced from natural gas using the steam reforming process was 72 percent."

I think this would go better with the information about the hydrogen required for production; it provides explicit information about how much of the hydrogen is produced from natural gas as opposed to gasification of other materials/fossil fuels or electrolysis of water, and because natural gas isn't mentioned in the rest of the information about hydrogen production even though it's the main source.

• "Hydrogen for ammonia synthesis could also be produced economically by using the water gas reaction followed by the water gas shift reaction, produced by passing steam through red-hot coke, to give a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide gases, followed by removal of the carbon dioxide "washing" the gas mixture with water under pressure (25 standard atmospheres (2,500 kPa));[98] or by using other sources like coal or coke gasification."

I think this information is out of place, because it proceed information about the Haber-Bosch process and other information about hydrogen production, and its wording leads me to believe that it originally followed that information.

• "Hydrogen required for ammonia synthesis could also be produced economically using other sources like coal or coke gasification or less economically from the electrolysis of water into oxygen + hydrogen and other alternatives that are presently impractical for large scale."

I think this should be edited, because "Hydrogen [for] ammonia synthesis could also be produced economically using..." is almost a word-for-word repeat of a previous sentence.

• "As a sustainable alternative to the relatively inefficient electrolysis, hydrogen can be generated from organic wastes (such as biomass or food-industry waste) using catalytic reforming. This releases hydrogen from carbonaceous substances at only 10–20% of energy used by electrolysis and may lead to hydrogen being produced from municipal wastes at below zero cost (allowing for the tipping fees and efficient catalytic reforming, such as cold-plasma). Catalytic (thermal) reforming is possible in small, distributed (even mobile) plants, to take advantage of low-value, stranded biomass/biowaste or natural gas deposits. "

This information is mixed in with/follows information about electrolysis, but I think it would be better grouped with other information about hydrogen production via gasification, naming biomass or waste as an alternative carbon source to natural gas or other fossil fuels.

• "Conversion of such wastes into ammonia solves the problem of hydrogen storage, as hydrogen can be released economically from ammonia on-demand, without the need for high-pressure or cryogenic storage... It is also easier to store ammonia onboard vehicles than to store hydrogen, as ammonia is less flammable than petrol or LPG."

I believe this information doesn't belong in this section, and would be better suited in the "Uses" section of the article.

• "There is significant recent progress in synthesizing ammonia more efficiently from H2 and N2 than with the Haber process. In 2012, Masaaki Kitano (and 9 co-authors), working with an organic ruthenium catalyst, demonstrated "Ammonia Synthesis Using a Stable Electride as an Electron Donor and Reversible Hydrogen Store".[100] In January 2018, Yutong Gong (and 12 co-authors) demonstrated "Ternary intermetallic LaCoSi as a catalyst for N2 activation"[101], an equally efficient production process, not dependent on rare metal. In July 2018, Xiaoqian Wang (and 14 co-authors) demonstrated "Atomically dispersed Au 1 catalyst towards efficient electrochemical synthesis of ammonia",[102] an even more efficient process. "

I believe all information in this paragraph refers to electrochemical production of ammonia, so electrochemical ammonia production should be explicitly mentioned in the first sentence, not only because of the rest of the paragraph, but because electrochemical ammonia production is a topic that deserves its own paragraph in this section.

I had edited this section, but it was reverted. I would like to see some of the edits re-reverted, namely:

• "Ammonia is one of the most produced inorganic chemicals. The USGS reports global ammonia production in 2014 was 176 million tonnes.[12] China accounted for 32.6% of that (increasingly from coal as part of urea synthesis), followed by Russia at 8.1%, India at 7.6%, and the United States at 6.4%.[12] About 88% of the ammonia produced was used for fertilizing agricultural crops."

This was my version of the first paragraph, and I thinks it's more concise, with some of the information relocated to other paragraphs in the section.

• "This reaction is both exothermic and results in decreased entropy, meaning that the reaction is favoured at lower temperatures and higher pressures. This makes it difficult and expensive to achieve, as lower temperatures result in slower reaction kinetics (hence a slower reaction rate) and high pressure requires high-strength pressure vessels that aren't subject to hydrogen embrittlement. The yield and efficiency are both low, meaning that ammonia produced must continuously be separated and extracted for the reaction to proceed at an appreciable pace. "

This is information I added (but didn't cite), that I think should be included. It elaborates on the difficulty of ammonia production and includes specific reasons why ammonia production is difficult and energy intensive, which I feel is under-stated elsewhere.

• "Hydrogen required for the Haber-Bosch process is mostly produced by gasification of carbon-containing material, mostly natural gas. As of 2012 the global production of ammonia produced from natural gas using the steam reforming process was 72 percent.[98]. Hydrogen can also be produced through electrolysis of water: at one time, most of Europe's ammonia was produced from the Hydro plant at Vemork, but electrolysis is a capital- and energy-intensive process that is uneconomical compared to gasification. "

I think this is more concise, because although hydrogen production is important to ammonia production, this information is the most relevant information regarding hydrogen production specifically for ammonia production. I left out information about alternative carbon sources for gasification, like coal, waste, or biomass, which would maybe be helpful, but I felt that saying "carbon-containg material" was sufficient for this article/section, and that explicitly naming natural gas gasification as the main hydrogen source for ammonia production was relevant.

• "Ammonia could potentially be synthesized in an electrochemical cell. In 2012, Masaaki Kitano (and 9 co-authors), working with an organic ruthenium catalyst, demonstrated "Ammonia Synthesis Using a Stable Electride as an Electron Donor and Reversible Hydrogen Store".[99] In January 2018, Yutong Gong (and 12 co-authors) demonstrated "Ternary intermetallic LaCoSi as a catalyst for N2 activation"[100], an equally efficient production process, not dependent on rare metal. In July 2018, Xiaoqian Wang (and 14 co-authors) demonstrated "Atomically dispersed Au 1 catalyst towards efficient electrochemical synthesis of ammonia",[101] an even more efficient process. "

I felt that explicitly stating "synthesized in an electrochemical cell" was importation inclusion for this article, and is more specific about the rest of the paragraph.

Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"used ammonia as one component fuel"

Physically impossible.

79.183.19.198 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

In some contexts, e.g. solid rocket fuels the concept "fuel" may include the oxidizer. In most contexts at least with air as oxidizer "fuel" would typically refer to the reducing components. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Etymology, and use in ancient Egypt

This article claims ammonia is named after Amun because Amun worshippers used ammonium chloride in their rituals. However, neither Ammonium chloride nor Amun mention this. The latter claims, on the contrary, that the Romans called ammonium chloride sal ammoniacus merely because its primary source was near the temple of Amun. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For me it seems strange that this strong statement (about the Ammonians) can be justified by a reference to just an arbitrary web page (reference 12) where NO references are given. Stefan Groote (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Insect stings

One finds many mentions of ammonia used to treat insect stings. The article should mention something about that.

Also mention if it is a good idea to treat cuts and wounds with it too. Jidanni (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead if you have a cite which meets Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Information about safety and GHS

It seems that Chembox contains information from 2013 Material Safety Data Sheet. Since then the information in MSDS has changed, see new version of MSDS: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?term=ammonia&interface=All&N=0&mode=match%20partialmax&lang=en&region=US&focus=product

GHS Pictograms, GHS precautionary statements and GHS hazard statements differ. I think these should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemician (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Updated. Was needed indeed. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blue and green

There are unexplained mentions of "blue ammonia" and "green ammonia" in the article. I assume that "green" refers to ammonia produced in an environmentally friendly way, though it would be nice to have that explained and not to have to assume. What is "blue" ammonia? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fuel or steam?

"and during World War II ammonia was used to power buses in Belgium" Were the buses really powered by ammonia steam engines, or were they powered by internal combustion engines fueled with ammonia?150.227.15.253 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"It is mainly collected by downward displacement of both air and water."

What does that even mean, the phrase has no context that would give that any sense. 79.79.246.219 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What?

"It is estimated that around 40% of the nitrogen in human beings originally comes from industrial ammonia production." This is illogical.

"As such, its importance can hardly be overstated." Weasel Words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.215.99 (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

why illogical? 92.7.35.194 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Its logically and I can see how it could happen (considering fertilizers used to raise crops for human and live stock consumption), but its unreferenced and likely not correct.Hardyplants (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This statement is not in the current article. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fuel section - CO2 vs GHG emissions

In the fuel section talks about CO2 emissions, but the important metric for climate considerations is CO2-equivalent. While burning a compound that does not contain carbon will not emit CO2, it can certainly lead to nitrous oxide emissions, a potent green house gas. The section needs to edited to reflect the true climate impact. The environmental and health impact from NOx emissions also needs further discussion in this section. MentallyFermented (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I added that as of 2022, however, significant amounts of NOx are produced. Hope others will add more Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Image of ammonia (maybe liquid)

I think that an image should be added (given how important ammonia is), possibly similar to the pages for nitrogen or oxygen where the image shows the condensed liquid boiling. Sticklink (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've checked commons and the existing options are poor. Aqueous ammonia is a common laboratory reagent, so I don't think it would be too hard for someone to take a picture of a Winchester of it . Liquid anhydrous ammonia is trickier and also not very impressive to look at (clear colourless liquid - dull). The only way to make it interesting is to drop a shard of sodium in to make it look like this Project Osprey (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)