Talk:Bismuth pentafluoride

Further readings


--Stone (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems highly unlikely....
'.... It reacts vigorously with water to form ozone and oxygen difluoride....' . This seems to be suggesting:

2BiF5 + 8H2O --->>> 03 + 5F20 + ?

But either ignores or purposely omits that Bismuth and Hydrogen in the reaction. Also, I don't think ozone formation would be energetically favorable at normal temperatures and pressures. It also seems more likely that fluorine and hydrogen would react rather than fluorine and oxygen. . 70.171.44.124 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) BGRIFFIN
 * I agree that the statement seems initially wild, but the "bible" (Greenwood and Earnshaw) says it is so. The books goes on to say that hydroxy Bi species are probably also formed.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how reactive this compound is, is the NFPA 704 hazard diamond correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.13.235 (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed something which "reacts vigorously with water to form ozone and oxygen difluoride," is unlikely to have NFPA Health 1, surely? Somehting has to give here: the diamond, the reactivity, or some kind of explanation of this usnual disparity. 193.62.194.245 (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Following through a little and the reactivity does seem real. The safety attributes I've seen all suggest the NFPA diamond is almost certainly wrong, and probably the one for Bi(III)F. But I don't have time to update it now (nor do I have a correct NFPA diamond). 193.62.194.245 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)