Talk:Nitrogen trifluoride

Remove unreferenced text from Nitrogen triflouride(data page) and prod same

 * Prod This unreferenced technical information is no longer linked to from the main article Nitrogen trifluoride(with one exception that goes to a dead link for the "Material Safety Data Sheet"). The main article has more current and better information and this article is not being updated but the main article is Jeepday (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This page provides supplementary chemical data on nitrogen trifluoride.

Material Safety Data Sheet
Commercial MSDS:
 * Air Liquide MSDS

Greenhouse gas
Please add details to the greenhouse gas section. What percentage escapes to the atmosphere? What are best practices to limit this? What is the percentage in the atmosphere? How does this change over time? What are the industry alternatives to avoid use of NF3?

The article should mention that July 2008 news articles particularly blame LCD panel production for the surge in use and release of NF3. -69.87.199.136 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally added this section last week in response to another similar newspaper article, which in turn was responding to a recent scientific paper. While this paper assumes (I think) that all  produced is released to the atmosphere, reading around a bit further, it seems that the quantity of  released is likely to be very small as the majority of it is destroyed by the very industrial processes that utilise it.  In fact, I believe that one of the scientific papers cited in this article makes precisely this point as an argument for the use of  (in place of PFCs, etc.).  Anyway, we really need a chemist to help here since it sounds like the newspaper story is somewhat overblown.  It wouldn't be the first time!  ;-)  --Plumbago (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the article is being watched by chemists (not that chemists have such special powers). The emerging problem - and my inclination to revert recent edits - is based on the usual Wikipedia guidelines (From What Wikipedia is not) that discourage giving advice or conducting anything close to original research (trying to calculate the amt of NF3 released etc).  I too am suspicious of some of the claims, but lets let the encyclopedia be an encyclopedia, not a soap box (tempting to me also, because we all love preaching).  Newspaper articles should be avoided completely as sources for technical stuff, IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO: Newspaper should be avoided for ANY information which has no second reliable source. But for the release of NF3 the article of Wen-Tien Tsai gives a rough estimation of the released amount between 3.6 and 56 tonns a year, which is a little bit less than the 4000 tonnes he estimates produced. So we might add this!--Stone (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I cut the comparison to the coal-fired plant. Based on the above I think it was wrong; and even if true its meaningless to compare global rpduction of one gas to the output of one power station William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The comparison to one coal-fired plant seems a potentially good way to put the greenhouse aspects of NF3 in perspective. One person might think that it shows that it is trivial, another person might think it shows it is not trivial.  But everyone has an idea of how much of an effect is at issue.  Even the industry is pleased to claim that "only" 2% leaks to the atmosphere; the only question is how much bigger the real number is.

Here is what was removed:

Although the impact of NF3 is difficult to project, based on 2008 production levels of 4000 tons, could prove to be more significant than PFCs or, and greater than that of the largest coal-fired power stations. {!--seems unlikely--}

{!--Well, consider this source claim: Overall, world production of NF3 is likely to reach 8,000 tons a year by 2010, Painter said. That is the equivalent of more than 130 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. By comparison, according to the UC Irvine paper, a major coal-fired power plant producing 3,600 megawatts of electricity emits as much as 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year.--}

It appears that if 20% is leaked, 2010 NF3 would equal one coal-fired plant. If only 2% leaks, it would equal one-tenth of a coal plant.

None of which gives a consumer the units they want -- how much NF3 correlates with the production of one LCD TV, and how that amount of greenhouse compares to the greenhouse from the electricity use of using the TV, or the potential greenhouse savings from the power efficiency of an LCD TV. -69.87.203.92 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I came here because someone added the text from this page to global warming potential. That made no sense to me William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in your infinite wisdom, you have chosen to censor any mention in the GWP article of this very powerful, currently controversial, non-regulated substance. Anyone trying to understand whether they should buy an LCD TV will get no help.  Congratulations!

-69.87.203.92 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not censoring any mention of it. I'm reverting the completely inappropriate dumping in of text wholesale from this article. Why do you think NF3 deserves more space than CO2 in that article? Meanwhile... you appear to be admitting that your purpose in adding text about NF3 here was advocacy. Which is honest, thank you, but its also wrong. You want to get a blog for that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * a blog for NF3 and related causes is an excellent idea for addressing some of the above issues. In fact such blogs must exist. It is difficult and necessary to keep Wikipedia objective, not some sort of advocacy platform or consumer advisory resource.  Otherwise these technical articles lose their value.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. It claims that (because of the very way in which NF3 is used) it is intrinsically likely that NF3 emissions will be very low. It is but a humble blog, though its a good one, and it cites the literature William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

First a couple of questions: 1. 20% not destroyed in the plasma is AFAIK reasonable for CF4, but for NF3 it is much lower. For some reason I recall 7% max. http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/201/pdfs/0698.pdf 2. The GWP for NF3 is lower than for some fluorocarbons (see http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html)  Therefore the statement that it has a higher GWP/100 years than anything but SF6 looks questionable 3. The concentration in the atmosphere is very, very low 4. Prather's 550 year lifetime is probably better/more recent I'll check back later before making changesJoshua Halpern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhalpern (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmospheric content estimate
I have removed the following: "The amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which could not be detected using previous techniques, had been estimated at less than 1,200 metric tons in 2006. New research published in Geophysical Research Letters (October 31, 2008) shows the actual amount was 4,200 metric tons. " If this is a second opinion estimate I recommend reintroducing the senetence in a week or so... Gabriel Kielland (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of NF3
What is the source for this: In 2008, about three-quarters of the chemical produced is now used to manufacture computer microchips; the rest is used to make LCD panels.? Does anybody know how big the share of thin-film solar modules is? According to the quoted sentence for the manifacturing of thin-film solar modules you don´t need NF3. --91.60.15.206 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the sentence. --91.60.17.14 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stability
I contrasted the low reactivity of NF3 with that of the other nitrogen halides, which, unlike NF3, have a positive enthalpy of formation (meaning that heat is released when they decompose into their elements) and are all explosive, most famously nitrogen triiodide.CharlesHBennett (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Enthalpy of formation
The given enthalpy of formation of ca. -30 kJ/mol seems very low (low absolute value) to me. I read about a N-F bond dissociation enthalpy of 270 kJ/mol (source: HCP and L.Pauling. The nature of the chemical bond. Cornell University Press (1960)), which would result in a calculated ΔfH of ~ -100 kJ/mol for NF3. Now I know that estimations based on bond dissociation enthalpies are not very accurate in complex molecules such as organic compounds, but they should give a relatively good estimation for simple binary compounds such as NF3... or have the measurement units been confused and -30 kcal/mol is meant? --79.243.235.94 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nitrogen trifluoride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516180731/http://www.rmets.org/activities/awards/scholarships/sch_2.php to http://www.rmets.org/activities/awards/scholarships/sch_2.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

rocket fuel?
I imagine there must have been some research into using this as an oxidizer in rocket fuel, because it's considerably more stable than chlorine trifluoride and almost as energetic by mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:0:15A0:CB5:A1BD:5134:B4DB (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nitrogen trifluoride. 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 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/science/02nitr.html?ref=science
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804170411/http://www.gasworld.com/news.php?a=2896 to http://www.gasworld.com/news.php?a=2896

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)