Talk:Sodium silicate

Chembox
Can the melting point be higher than the boiling point?
 * I'm suspecting the author has written the melting point as boiling point and vice versa. Therefore I'm going to do an experiment in a couple of days to see if it melts at 102 °C.
 * Got a hold of silica gel, it did not melt at over 102 °C.

Sodium Metasilicate is not the same!
Sodium Metasilicate redirects to this page, but has very different properties. It requires its own page. For a brief comparison see http://www.finishing.com/155/96.shtml. Can someone get that page started please? The text of this page should also be changed to reflect that these are not the same. On a (closely) related note, the silicic acid entry needs improvement, stats, pics, etc.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.80.77.131 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

The article mentions waterglass and describes it as having SiO2/Na2O ratios from 2:1 to 3.75:1 so if that is correct Na2SiO3 would not be waterglass (its ratio is 1:1) and waterglass would deserve its own Wikipedia article (both articles crossreferencing each other but making a distinction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.206.31.206 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Ring silicates (cyklosilikates) also have the formula (SiO3^2-)k with k=3,4 or 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.206.31.206 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the SiO2:Na2O-ratios are inverted. In reality the orthosilicate has a 1:2-ratio while the pyrosilicate has a 1:3 ratio. The 2-3.75:1 ratio makes no sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.145.66 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Is silica gel pure silica? --207.81.94.148 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism ?
Is the following sentence nonsense or am I missing something? Rsduhamel 08:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sodium silicate commands a 50 to 100 percent price premium over sodium hydroxide, and processors need the equivalent to 0.5 to 1 percent of it to the volume of crude oil as a neutralizing agent, depending on the acidity of the vegetable oil.

Found the original source of the sentence and fixed the article Rsduhamel 19:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update
--PaladinZ06 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I've added some information, and changed the content of the timber treatment section. The use of sodium silicate as a wood preservative may not be common, but it was hardly dreamed up in 2005. I am in the process of using an old method at home that uses sodium silicate solution as a wood sealer/fireproofing which is then sprayed with a boric acid solution which keeps the bugs at bay and forces the sodium silicate to gel.

There are several common trade products available containing primarily sodium silicate for treating concrete and other masonry products.

I apologize for any errors I've introduced. I am a total newcomer to this. --PaladinZ06 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dishwashing Detergent
I've noticed that my dishwasher detergent containts sodium silicate. This should probably be worked into the article.
 * MSTCrow 12:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sodium metasilicate is also used as a replacement for trisodium phosphate in painting preparation/degreasing. It works well in dishwashing except for the attack of glass. Softer, soda-lime glass is attacked via common ion solution effect, leaving the glass cloudy. As such, automatic dishwashing detergents containing appreciable amounts of sodium metasilicate should only be used for non-glass items like metal and plastics. Glazed stoneware is also susceptible to attack.


 * Another major ingredient in dishwasher soap is sodium carbonate. My intuition is that the common ion effect, from the dissolved silicate ion of sodium silicate, should help reduce the attack by sodium carbonate on glass and glazes. I would appreciate a correction if I am wrong. --AJim (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That whole section needs more info. See my comment in a section below. Cshay (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Silica Xerogel
According to the Nasa Space Sciences Questions and Answers FAQ (http://science.nasa.gov/faq/#anchor136932), sodium silicate gel, when air dried, forms silica xerogel, which is a similar to aerogel. Perhaps this wiki should be updated in regard to this?

Antifreeze (Bad!)
A friend of mine tried to use sodium silicate as an antifreeze in his car (prehaps misunderstanding its use as a cheap stop-leak compound). The stuff solidified while in his radiatior, requiring a complete cooling system replacement. Got2code 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Using it as antifreeze is probably quite bad but it is used as an antifreeze additive (corrossion inhibitor). If this is good or if it is better to use other inhibitors I can't tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.206.31.206 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The structure picture is incorrect and misleading
Na2SiO3 does not contain discrete SiO32- ions- with VERY rare exceptions silicates contain 4 coordinate Si and in the case of Na2SiO3 this contains one of the simpler polymeric chain anions. I have tried to remove the picture - with no success- beats me!. I have added words that explain the structure but the picture needs replacing.--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The figure indicates that it is one repetition unit in a chain which seems reasonable and fitting with the formula. There are other chain silicates (inosilicates) e.g. wollastonite, a pyroxenoide with the formula CaSiO3 and the pyroxene jadeite NaAlSi2O3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.206.31.206 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone want to add the fact that it is being used under the CARS act to distroy the engines of the "clunkers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.117.130 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Disodium oxosilanebis(olate) = inappropriate SystematicName
Problem with some content of the chembox:

| SystematicName = Disodium oxosilanebis(olate)

In organic chemistry, the suffix "olate" commonly refers to an alcoholate, not to the conjugated base of an inorganic acid. Disodium oxosilanebis(olate) is very misleading for the reader. The conjugated base of the metasilicic acid has to follow the same rules as for these of other inorganic acids whose base is also an oxyanion: e.g. All the rules of organic chemistry nomenclature are not directly transposable to inorganic compounds. The analogy with the carbon atom has its limits, even for silicon a close cousin of carbon. Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * sulfuric acid: sulfate and not sulfonate;
 * phosphoric acid: phosphate and not phosphonate.

Metasilicate represents a specific unit making a linear chain when concatenated together. According to the IUPAC Redbook (see Table IR-8.1, p. 128 on paper, p. 140 in the PDF file), the additive name of metasilicate is: catena-poly[(dioxidosilicate-µ-oxido)–1]. This name explicitly represents the species and is much more appropriated than the substitutive form only provided by User:Plasmic Physics. Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Substitutive names are most often not appropriate for inorganic compounds
Main discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hereafter, a first excerpt from the IUPAC Redbook (see p. 5 on paper, p. 17 in the PDF file): IR-1.5.3 Systems of nomenclature | IR-1.5.3.1 General:

Three systems are of primary importance in inorganic chemistry, namely compositional, substitutive and additive nomenclature; they are described in more detail in Chapters IR-5, IR-6 and IR-7, respectively. Additive nomenclature is perhaps the most generally applicable in inorganic chemistry, but substitutive nomenclature may be applied in appropriate areas. These two systems require knowledge of the constitution (connectivity) of the compound or species being named. If only the stoichiometry or composition of a compound is known or to be communicated, compositional nomenclature is used.

Most of the problem recently encountered for the nomenclature of simple inorganic compounds such as different silicate obviously arose from a wrong interpretation of the IUPAC nomenclature system by User:Plasmic Physics. For inorganic compounds the compositional nomenclature (the simplest and the more classic one) is most often preferable and also officially recommended by IUPAC. The additive nomenclature which is more complex comes in second rank. Finally, the substitutive nomenclature is the less general nomenclature for inorganic compounds and previously requires the knowledge of the connectivity of the compound or species being named.

Hereafter, a second excerpt from the IUPAC Redbook (see p. 6 on paper, p. 18 in the PDF file):

IR-1.5.3.3 Substitutive nomenclature:

Substitutive nomenclature is used extensively for organic compounds, …. In particular it is used for naming organic ligands in the nomenclature of coordination and organometallic compounds, …

So, the substitutive nomenclature is only useful when an inorganic ligand is part of a more complex bio-organic or organo-metallic entity. This kind of complex nomenclature is best avoided if not necessary even in scientific publications. Most often, it is reserved to the only publications describing the first synthesis or the first determination of the crystallographic structure of a new compound. Interestingly, IUPAC itself acknowledges the fact that its own conventions may differ from these of the International Union of Crystallography and that the guidelines given in the Redbook are not definitive. This emphasizes the relativity of nomenclature rules.

This explains why most of the contributors to the Project Chemicals are strongly perturbed by the recent edits made by User:Plasmic Physics. Practically, I would propose to ban the use of substitutive IUPAC nomenclature for inorganic compounds when it is clearly not applicable or simply not useful. The compositional IUPAC nomenclature should be first privileged and if considered useful, the additive IUPAC nomenclature rule might be given. This solution could relief the recent tensions caused by the blind application of non-appropriate IUPAC rules in the chemboxes of inorganic compounds by User:Plasmic Physics.

Naturally, for organic substances, the substitutive IUPAC nomenclature certainly makes sense, and no limitations should be applied in the field of organic chemistry. Please, simply read the introduction of the Redbook which explains how to correctly use it. The most shocking feeling with the very complex substitutive IUPAC nomenclature rules applied to very simple inorganic compounds is that they all appear to be treated without reason as complex carbon-based organic molecules. And this non-necessary overcomplexity is highly disruptive for very simple inorganic molecules. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dentistry?
There appears to be no word in the article about uses for dentistry. Anyone know why? Googling for info results in bad proprietary noise, and worse, often no real info at all (bad edits based on stolen text for domain placeholders and other web trash).

Superficially, to me (as an extreme non-expert), it seems that in reaction to tooth enamel and dentine it might form a nonsoluble calcium silicate that reduces porosity (and therefore sensitivity) and vulnerability to wear, and that the reaction might cease naturally at the surface in a way analogous to that of aluminium oxide on the surface of aluminium, and offer analogously similar advantages.

There is clearly some evidence (written on the sides of many dental products like gels and toothpastes) that something of this nature is intended, yet no mention of this exists in any form in the Wikipedia page for sodium silicate. If someone knows enough to correct this reliably, without some proprietary interest, please add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.140.233 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This talkpage is for discussing maintanance, refer to WP:Reference desk/Science for unrelated questions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article on Home brewing (which I added to and edited) refers to its flocculant properties. However: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.247.229 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Deflocculant / Deflocculant
In Ceramic production small quantities are added to clay slip. When the slip is poured out of the plaster mould a layer of clay is left behind on the surface to create the tableware, hollow decorative piece, wash-basin etc. The deflocculant stops the clay from settling out to the bottom of the mould; the particles stay in suspension while the necessary thickness builds on the plaster surface.<<Simon Armstrong, amateur potter in demonstration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.247.229 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the IUPAC definition, flocculation is "a process of contact and adhesion whereby the particles of a dispersion form larger-size clusters." Flocculation is synonymous with agglomeration, aggregation, and coagulation / coalescence.

See also: Flocculation. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a potter... sodium silicate is used in pottery as a DE-flocculant (opposite of a flocculant). Is this section correct (also the section titled "Water Treatment"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.49.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a potter. Potter unfortunately consistently use flocculant and DE-flocculant the wrong way around. When they do describe what the compound is doing it is the opposite of the word they use. Nzkennys (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Liquid glass?
I came to this article on redirect from "liquid glass" while looking for info on nanopool's product of that name. That product is sprayed onto surfaces leaving a 100 nanometer thick coating, which repels water and has anti-bacterial properties. As far as I can tell, the two materials are unrelated. There was considerable hype a couple of years ago, and this year the product won an award in a hospital setting. Should there be an article on this material? Lfstevens (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to add a link "For the company, see Liquid Glass Nanotech", but the stub article that I created for the company was speedily deleted as non-notable. Sorry. Maybe you can create an article on the product or company with references to prove its notability? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Detergent auxiliaries"?
The term "detergent auxiliaries" is used without a definition. As far as I know it is not a standard english term. Seem to be industry jargon of some kind. It needs to be defined for laypeople to be able to understand. In general the detergent section needs a few more sentences. Cshay (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Formula in infobox
The molecular formula is given as Na2O3Si. This is not in accordance with the text. Tried to change it, but it didn't work. --Janke | Talk 19:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Chembox moved to sodium metasilicate. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Iron containing impurities
The very start of this article says: "The pure compositions are colourless or white, but commercial samples are often greenish or blue owing to the presence of iron-containing impurities."

The first thing that came into my mind when reading this was: greenish/blue-ish..., that rather points to copper-containing impurities (maybe in addition to the presence of iron-containing contaminants). Is someone able to verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.29.130 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ferrous salts are usually lime green.  It is those ions that give the green color to green glass bottles and a slightly greenish tinge to common window glass.  Ferric  salts, in contrast, are usually orangish-yellow, orange, or orangish-brown.  They are responsible for the colors of rust, red/brown/tan dirt, common earthenware, and brown glass bottles. Magnetite, a combination of  and  oxides, is black.  IIANM, it (or combinations with other compounds) gives the black or dark grey color to basalt, obsidian, lava, and other volcanic rocks, to the black sand in beaches, to black pottery and to the "rust" on iron pans. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

History section: Fuchs?
The history section is a bit confusing. It dismisses the earlier reports of potassium silicates in the 1500s and 1600s, and seems to claim that Fuchs was the inventor of "true" waterglass in 1818. However the references seems to say that his waterglass too was potassium, rather than sodium, silicate. What gives? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad reference in Properties section
In the Properties section, reference [19] is not relevant, and refers instead to the war in Iraq! Ianactually (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sealing of leaking - Bad unit conversion
In the section "Sealing of leaking water-containing structures" it states "...secretly buy 140 quarts (160 liters)". A liter is bigger than a quart, so this lacks credibility. I don't have the referenced source to discover which is incorrect. Please fix. OneByteAtATime (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)