Talk:Uranyl carbonate

Oxidation-state confusions
The article has long stated that the core is uranium(VI), which is consistent with the core "UO2" being a +2 ion and also consistent with a 1:1 ratio to the carbonate –2 ion. However, that "dioxide uranyl core" is linked to Uranium dioxide, which is the neutral UO2 (i.e., uranium(VI)) not uranium(VI). Should it point to Uranium trioxide instead? Unless the point is that it has the same oxo-ligand count in the solid state? But the given O#U#O (where # is a triple bond) component does not match the tetrahedral lattice given in the uranium dioxide article.

Then there is a list of several forms found in ground water, including some with hydroxyl ligands. Hydroxide is usually considered a –1 ligand according to hydroxide itself (and consistent with the metal oxidation states in the minerals listed there that I spot-checked). But the article here lists "UO2(OH)2+, which would be U(VII)? Otherwise, wouldn't adding two OH–1 to UO2+2 make it neutral not +1 (or else OH needs to be effectively a –½)? Or is this actually a hydrate of the uranyl-oxide or somehow else not the same form of the oxo ligands as in the parent compound? UO2(CO3)(OH)3− is similarly confusing. If 'uranium carbonate" as given previously is neutral, three OH–1 to it wouldn't make it a monoanion. And even if I have no idea really how the OH behaves in the first one, adding one more of them and a –2 carbonate would only work in this second case if the OH were effectively –0. There's either something wrong with the charges or the way the ligands are identified, or else a very clear explanation is needed to unconfuse a world of non-minerologists. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)