Talk:Yttrium/Archive 1

Attn User:Poor_Yorick: The table you added displays totally jumbled in Mozilla. Mkweise 06:09 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Another use
An article here states that yttrium is also used in mantles for Coleman propane lanterns.

Another link here seems to back up that claim. Is this worth adding to the article?


 * Looks like somebody already did that. Thanks for the link; I added it is an inline citation for that sentence. --mav (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The colour red
As LCD and plasma TVs are becoming more common, I'm changing


 * two of its compounds are used to make the red color in color televisions

to


 * two of its compounds are used to make the red color in cathode ray tubes, such as those used for televisions.

I don't think we're quite at the point where we can say "old-fashioned televisions" yet, though we seem to be getting there ...

RandomP 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Note Small Error...
In the Characteristics Paragraph, it states that the element is a rare-earth metal, where in reality it is a transition metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brick.14 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Fixed. --mav (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced occurrence info
What should we do about the massive chunk of information in Occurrence that's unsourced? I did some snooping and found that it was added by User talk:68.57.53.102. It seems that IP made several meaty contributions to rare earth elements but was notorious for never citing his sources. S/he pretty much wrote all of didymium in March of 2007, and that article is still lacking sources. Unfortunately, that IP stopped editing more than a year ago, so we can no longer simply ask where the information came from.

Anywho, I think we can simply delete the section on minerals. Mav has added some other information on minerals already, so it won't be a big loss. I do think the chunk about lanthanide contraction is important, but we might as well just find a good textbook or journal about it and just start from scratch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree but would like to wait on deletion until after I've had a chance to check two new element books I'm waiting to arrive: Chemistry of the Elements, Second Edition by Earnshaw and Exploring Chemical Elements and Their Compounds by Heiserman. I might be able to find cites for at least some of that text via those two books. I'd then work to condense the rather rambling prose. --mav (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics WTF?
I'm going through the article making minor prose tweaks, and I have a few questions for you (mav) regarding the characteristics section:


 * Why is the characteristics section written as though yttrium is not a member of rare earth elements? That article clearly states that the rare earths are comprised of the lanthanoids, scandium, and yttrium. (e.g. "their size in solution is so close to heavy rare earths that it behaves as if it were one of them")
 * "and if its physical properties were plotted against atomic number, then it would have an apparent number of 64.5 to 67.5" Huh?
 * "In bulk form, it is relatively stable in air due to the formation of a protective oxide film on its surface. When heated to 750 °C in water vapor a protective film 105 Å thick is formed." Are these two sentences describing the same film, or two different films under different conditions? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources I have state very clearly that Y is not technically speaking (at least) a rare earth element. Those source do, however, go on and on about the chemical similarities and state that those similarities often lead some to say that Y is a rare earth. I downloaded the IUPAC cite at rare earth but couldn't find a page that backed up the claim. If you can find the page, please tell me and I'll take a look. The second point backs up the first and the third point is something I need to fix (the second sentence is baking up the first; I need to find better wording to make that clear). --mav (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 63 of the the document states "The following collective names for like elements are IUPAC-approved: ... rare earth metals (Sc, Y, the lanthanoids)". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - we should, in NPOV style, describe the differing definitions. I'll do this myself if not beaten to it. But right now I need to save Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area from a possible FARC. --mav (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there going to be a FAC push?
I went through the article and added a few refs myself (I did not try to mess with the Refs section though). Besides the rare earth or not dispute, in my opinion we need to bulk up a compounds/chemistry section, and move the unrefferenced section from the geological section into the chemistry one. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Krogt ref has an image with the discoveries of elements from yttria which could go well in the history section, especially since the article is lacking images. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I will nominate this at FAC once I'm happy with it. BTW, I wish you would have asked on this talk page before adding this article to GAN. As is, I think this article may not qualify for GA and I'd hate to have a failed GAN in the article history. --mav (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just nominated it for GAN because articles usually stay there for a couple of weeks. By that time I assumed the article would have gotten enough improvements to be rated as GA. Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

toxicology
The toxic effects might be some interferenze with the calcium metabolism. --Stone (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/yttriumandcompounds/recognition.html Nergaal (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * --Stone (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Left to do: : (1) copy-edit - I've added a bit of info myself which might not fit very well into the text as it is now.
 * (2) this hidded text that was probably forgotten in the occurence section which needs to be squeezed for some useful info:

Due to lanthanide contraction, yttrium, which is trivalent, is of similar ionic size to dysprosium and its lanthanide neighbors. Due to the relatively gradual decrease in ionic size with increasing atomic number, the rare earth elements have always been difficult to separate. Even with eons of geological time, geochemical separation of the lanthanides has only rarely progressed much farther than a broad separation between light versus heavy lanthanides, otherwise known as the cerium and yttrium earths. This geochemical divide is reflected in the first two rare earths that were discovered, yttria in 1794 and ceria in 1803. As originally found, each comprised the entire mixture of the associated earths. Rare earth minerals, as found, usually are dominated by one group or the other, depending upon which size-range best fits the structural lattice. Thus, among the anhydrous rare earth phosphates, it is the tetragonal mineral xenotime that incorporates yttrium and the yttrium earths, whereas the monoclinic monazite phase incorporates cerium and the cerium earths preferentially. The smaller size of the yttrium group allows it a greater solid solubility in the rock-forming minerals that comprise the earth's mantle, and thus yttrium and the yttrium earths show less enrichment in the earth's crust, relative to chondritic abundance, than does cerium and the cerium earths. This has economic consequences: large orebodies of the cerium earths are known around the world, and are being actively exploited. Corresponding orebodies for yttrium tend to be rarer, smaller, and less concentrated. Most of the current supply of yttrium originates in the "ion adsorption clay" ores of Southern China. Some versions of these provide concentrates containing about 65% yttrium oxide, with the heavy lanthanides being present in ratios reflecting the Oddo-Harkins rule: even-numbered heavy lanthanides at abundances of about 5% each, and odd-numbered lanthanides at abundances of about 1% each. Similar compositions are found in xenotime or gadolinite.

Well-known minerals that contain yttrium include gadolinite, xenotime, samarskite, euxenite, fergusonite, yttrotantalite, yttrotungstite, yttrofluorite (a variety of fluorite), thalenite, yttrialite. Small amounts occur in zircon, which derives its typical yellow fluorescence from some of the accompanying heavy lanthanides. The zirconium mineral eudialyte, such as is found in southern Greenland, also contains small but potentially useful amounts of yttrium. Of the above yttrium minerals, most played a part in providing research quantities of lanthanides during the discovery days. Xenotime is occasionally recovered as a byproduct of heavy sand processing, but has never been nearly as abundant as the similarly recovered monazite (which typically contains a few percent of yttrium). Uranium ores processed in Ontario have occasionally yielded yttrium as a byproduct.
 * (3) rewrite intro
 * (4) I've placed a dubious label: is THE metal used as a catalyst or some compound? if it is a metal, then please state that it is a heterogenous catalysis to make it more clear
 * (5) cross section for nuclear capture: of what type of particles? If I remember well, I think the cross section varies a lot with the type of capture. It would be nice if the sentence were a bit more precise.
 * (6) add refs: I've added 16 tags in places where I thought a reference might be needed. if you think it's not necessary, just remove the tag
 * 5 left, more to format Nergaal (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (7) compounds section tends to repeat the applications section
 * (8) applications section might have to get bumped down until before precautions

Once these are done I think we can have a quick, successful FAC. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the new web references are not very good and for FAC we need better !--Stone (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to add them, based on what info they back up. Please label those that you think should be cahnged. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the fulfile their purpose, but I will try to finde some peer reviewed journals tomorrow! I go to bed! By the way, I like to see that Yttrium and Germanium are on the way to get really good articles. You do a good job Nergal!--Stone (talk)
 * Including britannica, there are 5 refs that could potentially not be reliable. I ahve left them in the notes section. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It took a couple hours, but I think the article is now organized more logically and much of the duplication between applications/compounds/characteristics has been eliminated. Having the ==Characteristics== section come first is a WikiProject Elements standard practice and I like what we did at the Oxygen FA by grouping isotope info under ==Characteristics==. I went one step further here and also grouped the compound info there since the focus of that text is (rightfully) on reactions, which is a fairly important set of characteristics. On top of that, I think I resolved the rare earth vs non-rare earth issue by discovering that some of my sources almost treated 'rare earth' as synonymous with 'lanthanoid'. So I edited accordingly. Below is my todo list to get this article to FAC. I'll start on this list tomorrow after work. --mav (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not ready for FAC yet

To do before FAC:
 * more info needed under ===Properties===
 * info needed on nucleosynthesis under ===Isotopes==
 * ===Isotopes=== needs more inline cites and jargon briefly explained in metastable para.
 * general expansion using Greenwood's tome Chemistry of the Elements
 * add some images ; make sure all images are relevant to adjacent prose
 * fix dubious statements and try to sort out some of the notes, which mention conflicting information.
 * expand lead section to properly summarize the whole article
 * replace sub-par references with better ones (per Stone above)
 * move all reference detail to ==Bibliography== and use consistent reference style
 * address all valid concerns left on this talk page and at PR
 * thorough copyedit and MoS check


 * The article is looking great, but I agree it still needs a bit of work. I added a couple of with hidden comments explaining what needs to be clarified, and a  tag for the low oxidation states. I checked the reference and couldn't find any mention of yttrium in oxidation states +1 and +2 (if I missed it, please let me know in which page). However, Greenwood and Earnshaw do list +2 in their table of oxidation states, although the story in the relevant chapter is more complicated. They say that YH2 exists but it is "not really Y(II)". They also mention some complex and seemingly low-valent halides, but the oxidation states are not entirely clear. This needs more elaboration in the article. I think the hydride, in particular, should be mentioned because it is an interesting case. In any case, if the low oxidation states are mentioned in the article, this would need to be reconciled with the statement that yttrium is always trivalent.
 * Regarding the references, I think lenntech.com is probably not the best. Also, I see several references to patents. You have to be careful with that. First, because patents are not really peer-reviewed science and are not proof that something works (I think there are even patents for perpetual motion machines!). But more importantly, just because something is patented doesn't mean that it is actually used in the real world. It may have become obsolete, or maybe it never became commercially viable. Therefore you can never use a patent to back up a statement such as "yttrium is used for...". --Itub (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the oxidation states: I've added the ref, but you are right. It is probably because I switched the ref with another one. I bet one of the other refs has the +1 +2 thing in it but I cannot find which one. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some things to improve:
 * Ignition device having a firing tip formed from a yttrium-stabilized platinum-tungsten alloy is not a good reference either for the replacment of the bosch webpage, but....
 * The production and mining is missing a little bit.
 * Yttrium is part of the rare earth elements, all of the rare earths show similar chemical behaviour . Due to this behaviour and thy get enriched by the same processes and end up in mixed ore bodies. A slight seperation is although reconiced into the group of the light (LREE) and the heavy rare eath elements (HREE) but this separation is never complete. The yttrium although it has a lower atomic mass is concentrated in the HREE group.
 * There are four main sources for REEs:
 * The carbonate and fluoride containing ores for example bastnäsite which is a LREE ore and contains in average 0.1% of Yttrium compared to the 99.9% for the 16 other REE. The main source for Bastnäsite from the 1960s to the 1990s was the Montain Pass mine California making the United States the lagest producer for REEs.
 * The monazite, which are mostly phosphate, are placer deposits of sand which is created by the transportation and gravitational separation of erroded granite. Monazite as a LREE ore contains 2% of yttrium. The largest deposites were found in India and Brazil in the early 19th century, making these two countries the largest producers in the first half of that century.
 * The mineral xenotime a REE phosphate is the main HREE ore containing upto 60% of Yttrium. The largest mine for this mineral is the Bayan Obo deposite in China, making China the largest exporter for HREE since the closure of the Mountain Pass mine in the 1990s.
 * The ion absorbtion clay or Lognan clay are weathering products of granite and contain only 1% of REEs. The final ore concentrate can contain upt o 8% of Yttrium. Ion absorbtion clay are mostly mined in southern china.

As all RREs are produced in the same way, but the mining places like the Mountain pass mine in California with the Bastnaesite (light LREEs). And the Xenotime from Bayan Obo which produces the heavy HRREs. The placer deposits of monazite sand from Brasil and India which where the big producers in early 19th century.
 * The first major discovery high-temperature superconductivity. I doubt that the use of YAG in lasers and the use of Y in steel production is more important for the world than the superconductive material nobody uses except demonstarting the magnetic properties of the material.
 * --Stone (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Image:GarnetCrystalUSGOV.jpg. Also, tehre seems to be a lot more on Yttrium aluminium garnet. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Production
Yttrium is part of the rare earth elements group, all of the rare earths show similar chemical behaviour. Due to this behaviour and they get enriched by the same processes and end up in mixed ore bodies. A slight seperation is although reconiced into the group of the light (LREE) and the heavy rare eath elements (HREE) but this separation is never complete. The yttrium although it has a lower atomic mass is concentrated in the HREE group.
 * The carbonate and fluoride containing ores for example bastnäsite which is a LREE ore and contains in average 0.1% of Yttrium compared to the 99.9% for the 16 other REE. The main source for Bastnäsite from the 1960s to the 1990s was the Mountain Pass mine California making the United States the lagest producer for REEs.
 * The monazite, which are mostly phosphate, are placer deposits of sand which is created by the transportation and gravitational separation of erroded granite. Monazite as a LREE ore contains 2% of yttrium. The largest deposites were found in India and Brazil in the early 19th century, making these two countries the largest producers in the first half of that century.
 * The mineral xenotime a REE phosphate is the main HREE ore containing upto 60% of yttrium. The largest mine for this mineral is the Bayan Obo deposite in China, making China the largest exporter for HREE since the closure of the Mountain Pass mine in the 1990s.
 * The ion absorbtion clay or Lognan clay are weathering products of granite and contain only 1% of REEs. The final ore concentrate can contain upt o 8% of Yttrium. Ion absorbtion clay are mostly mined in southern china.

One method to obtain the pure yttrium from the mixed oxide ores is to dissolve the oxide in sulfuric acid and fractionated by ion exchange chromatography. With addition of oxalic acid the yttrium oxalate precipitates. The oxalates is converted into the oxide by heating under oxygen. By reacting the resulting yttrium oxide with hydrogen fluoride yttrium fluoride is obtained. The fluoride is converted to a metall sponge by reduction with calcium magnesium alloy. The temperature of a arc furnace of above 1600°C is sufficent to melt the yttrium.

  

Would this work?--Stone (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At a quick looks I don't see why it wouldn't. The only comment I would have is to merge this with the occurrence section (i.e. keep the first and the alst paragraph there and add this stuff after them). Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not done
For the sake of clarity:
 * 1) (2) this hidded text that was probably forgotten in the occurence section which needs to be squeezed for some useful info: Due to lanthanide contraction, yttrium, which is trivalent, is of similar ionic size to dysprosium and its lanthanide neighbors. Due to the relatively gradual decrease in ionic size with increasing atomic number, the rare earth elements have always been difficult to separate. Even with eons of geological time, geochemical separation of the lanthanides has only rarely progressed much farther than a broad separation between light versus heavy lanthanides, otherwise known as the cerium and yttrium earths. This geochemical divide is reflected in the first two rare earths that were discovered, yttria in 1794 and ceria in 1803. As originally found, each comprised the entire mixture of the associated earths. Rare earth minerals, as found, usually are dominated by one group or the other, depending upon which size-range best fits the structural lattice. Thus, among the anhydrous rare earth phosphates, it is the tetragonal mineral xenotime that incorporates yttrium and the yttrium earths, whereas the monoclinic monazite phase incorporates cerium and the cerium earths preferentially. The smaller size of the yttrium group allows it a greater solid solubility in the rock-forming minerals that comprise the earth's mantle, and thus yttrium and the yttrium earths show less enrichment in the earth's crust, relative to chondritic abundance, than does cerium and the cerium earths. This has economic consequences: large orebodies of the cerium earths are known around the world, and are being actively exploited. Corresponding orebodies for yttrium tend to be rarer, smaller, and less concentrated. Most of the current supply of yttrium originates in the "ion adsorption clay" ores of Southern China. Some versions of these provide concentrates containing about 65% yttrium oxide, with the heavy lanthanides being present in ratios reflecting the Oddo-Harkins rule: even-numbered heavy lanthanides at abundances of about 5% each, and odd-numbered lanthanides at abundances of about 1% each. Similar compositions are found in xenotime or gadolinite. Well-known minerals that contain yttrium include gadolinite, xenotime, samarskite, euxenite, fergusonite, yttrotantalite, yttrotungstite, yttrofluorite (a variety of fluorite), thalenite, yttrialite. Small amounts occur in zircon, which derives its typical yellow fluorescence from some of the accompanying heavy lanthanides. The zirconium mineral eudialyte, such as is found in southern Greenland, also contains small but potentially useful amounts of yttrium. Of the above yttrium minerals, most played a part in providing research quantities of lanthanides during the discovery days. Xenotime is occasionally recovered as a byproduct of heavy sand processing, but has never been nearly as abundant as the similarly recovered monazite (which typically contains a few percent of yttrium). Uranium ores processed in Ontario have occasionally yielded yttrium as a byproduct.
 * 1) more info needed under ===Properties===
 * 2) ===Isotopes=== needs more inline cites and jargon briefly explained in metastable para.
 * 3) fix dubious statements and try to sort out some of the notes, which mention conflicting information.
 * 4) expand lead section to properly summarize the whole article
 * 5) replace sub-par references with better ones (per Stone above)
 * 6) move all reference detail to ==Bibliography== and use consistent reference style
 * 7) thorough copyedit and MoS check
 * 8) couple of  with hidden comments explaining what needs to be clarified,
 * 9) Ignition device having a firing tip formed from a yttrium-stabilized platinum-tungsten alloy is not a good reference either for the replacment of the bosch webpage, but....
 * Its a patent and in addition with the hompage of Bosch, which is a huge seller of sparc plugs you know what it is and that somebody sells it.--Stone (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The first major discovery high-temperature superconductivity. I doubt that the use of YAG in lasers and the use of Y in steel production is more important for the world than the superconductive material nobody uses except demonstarting the magnetic properties of the material.
 * Good point. I nixed the 'first major' part. --mav (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "It can appear to gain a slight pink luster on exposure to light" - vague. Either it does or it does not. NB As far as I can see, the citation you provide for this statement (Hammond) does not mention this.
 * 2) "Lunar rock samples collected during the Apollo program have a relatively high yttrium content" - this is vague, "relatively high" should be quantified.
 * I looked in some refs from 1970s and they give 90ppm max with rough average of 40ppm in the rich samples and 10 in the poor samples, this does not look very high at all. compared with a average here on earth of 30ppm.--Stone (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The text says relatively high. Since max is three times the one here it might be relevant enough. Perhapsh saying slightly higher instead of relatively would suffice. Nergaal (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But if you go to Ytterby and collect a sample there you would get more than 90ppm!--Stone (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How many measurements were taked for the 40-average and 90 max? i.e. what is the standard dev? Nergaal (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Abundances of the 14 rare-earth elements and 12 other trace elements in Apollo 12 samples: Five igneous and one breccia rocks and four soils
 * The relationships between geology and soil chemistry at the Apollo 17 landing site
 * They give several analysis...-Stone (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * so statistically the samples are relevant. With at least 10 samples, you have an estimated error that goes with 1/sqrt(#samples) giving an error of less than 30% (statistically). so statistically you have a 30-50ppm estimation based on the 40 mean => relatively high compared to earth? Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The KREEP (I like the acronym) samples are the ones with the high yttrium yield!--Stone (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are the yttrium-halogen and yttrium sulfide, antimonide and arsenide compounds notable? Currently they are simply mentioned almost in passing.
 * I think this has been taken care of by adding info on reactions and products. --mav (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" - this is a little vague ("a few"), and seems tacked-on. Some examples, and information about how/why they are interesting, could be useful.
 * This has been rephrased and a bit more context added. See answer @ #18 --mav (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The "Consumer" subheading in the Applications section sounds odd.
 * It is under ==Applications==, thus 'Consumer applications'. That doesn't sound odd to me... --mav (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Yttrium iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3Fe5O12 and Y3Al5O12) have important magnetic properties" - why are they important?
 * That suggested expansion is more appropriate for an article on yttrium garnets, I think. The source didn't expand on the point either. --mav (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "This superconductor operated at 93 K, notable because this is above liquid nitrogen's boiling point (77.1 K)" - why is it notable that it operates above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen?
 * 2) In general there is quite a lot of information that is simply provided as short, almost stand-alone sentences, e.g. "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" and "YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer". I think these sentences would benefit - as would the article - from a little more context.
 * The YIG part doesn't seem to be a good example b/c it is already grouped with other information about YIG in the article. Same for the odd oxidation state example. I think enough context along with links to articles that expand on certain points is already provided. Providing more context in this article would lead to an excessive amount of detail, IMO. A separate applications of yttrium and its compounds would be more appropriate for that. We need to maintain Summary Style in this article. --mav (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody still working on this article? Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to work more on this in the next couple days. --mav (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) --mav (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * notes:
 * 1) "is never found in nature uncombined with other elements" sounds very awkward
 * 2) is there a good reason not to put the pink luster under the influence of light?
 * 1) Fixed.
 * 2) If you can rephrase in a way that won't get tagged as dubious, yes.

Ready for FAC?
I'm now pretty happy with the article; the only two items left on my list for this article are to move reference detail to ==Bibliography== and perform a final copyedit. Once that is done, will this article be ready for FAC (keeping in mind that some minor tweaks can occur during FAC)? If not, then what else needs to be done? If ready, who else, among those who have worked a lot on this article, would like to co-nom the FAC with me? --mav (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm now done. --mav (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do some copyediting, I suppose, and I'll try to help deal with FAC concerns as they are brought up. As for the co-nom, I'd be fine if I were just lumped into WP:ELEMENTS, as I pretty much stopped working on the article once it achieved GA. I don't know, it's up to you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "the d electron orbital leads to more localized bonding of the metal than its p-block counterparts in the same period." I have a hard time understanding what you meant here. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) "89Y is thought to be more abundant and more stable than it otherwise would be, due in part to the s-process which allows enough time for isotopes created by other processes to decay by electron emission (neutron → proton)." nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with the stability of the product -  only with its abundance.  Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both above issues fixed. --mav (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is essentially ready, other than the final copy edit and MoS check for silly things like en dashes. I made a few improvements (I hope) to the article but I wouldn't say they are substantial enough to count as a co-nominator. Cheers, Itub (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still one short paragraph that lacks any references, but otherwise it looks ready! Nergaal (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah let's get going with this since it will take another 2-3 weeks for the FAC. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to start the FAC later today. First, we need to finish up. --mav (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to submit this to FAC now. --mav (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to help, in the things I am good.--Stone (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I wanted to suggest was to rearrange the Applications section a little bit. USGS Yttrium 2004 says that: lamp and cathode-ray-tube phosphors, 77%; alloys, 5%; and miscellaneous, 18% And therfor a section electronics illumination laser and ray tubes ( short heading might be good) insted of Consumers and Garnets might be a better solution. But this is only a minor change.--Stone (talk)
 * Yes, please do! :) --mav (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Phosphate
While reviewing tomorrow's "Today's Featured Article" for typos and such, I found this sentence: "Xenotime, a REE phosphate, is the main HREE ore containing up to 60% of yttrium as yttrium phosphate (YPO3)." I'm not dedicated enough to pay 30 bucks to look up the citation, but according to the xenotime and phosphate articles, phosphate is PO4, not PO3. I found some mention of YPO3 by using Google, but it was never identified as yttrium phosphate. Another problem is the 60% figure. PO4 has more atomic mass than yttrium, so how can the ore be 60% yttrium? PO3 is also too heavy to explain that statistic. Does it mean that yttrium is 60% of the rare earth metal, or that yttrium phosphate is 60% of the ore? If so, that isn't what it says. Art LaPella (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its percent of the REE elements. The ref says:60% Y; 11% La+Ce+Pr+Nd; 1.2 Sm; 0.01%Eu; 3.16% Gd; 1% Tb; 7.5% Dy; 2% Ho; 6.2 Er; 1.27% Tm; 6 %Yb; 0.63 Lu.--Stone (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice article but ...
Can an article really be FA quality if it doesn't reference Pokémon? Houston, Texas sealed a to-be-open-in-100-years time capsule on January 21, 2001 that contained Pokemon characters and a sample of YBCO (yttrium barium copper oxide). To top it off, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech. Seriously, though, this is a great article; I wish it was around when I had Chemsitry. Congrats. -- Suntag  ☼  03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL - thanks for the compliment. --mav (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lanthanoid contraction
I added this sentence:


 * "Even though the lanthanoids are one row farther down the periodic table than yttrium, the similarity in atomic radius may be attributed to the lanthanoid contraction."

I don't have a reference for this, but it's common sense. Comments? Crystal whacker (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a common misconception around about the lanthanide contraction. "Very simply, the effect results from poor shielding of nuclear charge by 4f electrons". True, but it is not unique or limited to 4f electrons. It is an example of the normal trend for atomic radius to decrease, across each row of the periodic table, with increasing atomic number. It is most clearly illustrated in the trivalent lanthanides because there are no effects of changing oxidation state. Divalent ions of the first transition series show the same trend when crystal/ligand field effects have been removed.


 * The real importance of the lanthanide contraction is not so much in the lanthanides as in the the effect it has on the elements following them: La(III) is larger than Y(III), but Hf(IV) is almost the same size as Zr(IV). I give the oxidation states, because that's where the chemistry occurs, where it is so difficult to separate Zr from Hf. In the context of the present article, we can see that the similarity in chemistry of Y(III) and Lu(III) is analogous to the similarity of Zr(IV) and Hf(IV), as suggested by Crystal whacker. It's not usually discussed as an effect of the lanthanide contraction because Y and Lu are in differerent groups. Greenwood and Earnshaw don't mention it. I'll have to have a word with Norman about that, when I next see him. Petergans (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They do mention it, in the chapter about lanthanides, page 1234 (I've added the page number). But please, when you meet Norman, tell him I asked when are they going to publish a new edition! :) --Itub (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to happen. Alan Earnshaw is no longer with us. He had a heart attack about 6 months after the first edition was published. About 6 months after the second he had another, fatal one. My personal opinion is that it was the strain of working on such a huge project that finally did for him. He was a good friend and it's sad that he died so young. Petergans (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, I didn't know. I really love this book and bought both editions (although eventually gave the older one to a friend); it would have been fantastic to see it updated. --Itub (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that, Peter. It's very interesting.  I'm aware that the lanthanide contraction explains the similarity in size between Zr(IV) and Hf(IV) and so on through the d-block metals.  It's not typically invoked to explain the similarity in size between yttrium and later lanthanides, but given the context in the article it seemed relevant. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Periodic group
Surely the group 3 elements are Sc, Y, La, Ac? NOT Lu!! See, for example, long-form periodic table. Petergans (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Both conventions are common and are often a source of debate. The group 3 element article tries to explain the story. --Itub (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Common? I've never seen it. Lu is a lanthanide in all the standard inorganic texts, Greenwood & Earnshaw, Cotton & Wilkinson, Housecroft & Sharpe, Shriver & Atkins ... The debate was concluded long ago. Petergans (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just last month there was an article published in J. Chem. Ed. continuing the debate (advocating La and Ac in group 3), and it cites a few books and articles that follow the opposite convention. See . There are also four letters about this topic in the same issue. --Itub (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable! In 50 years as a chemist I have never, until yesterday, seen a periodic table with Lu anywhere other than in the lanthanide series. Web elements is a first for me and, as far as I'm concerned, just another example of nonsense on the web. IUPAC puts La under Y. There is no ambiguity about it, just that the lanthanide series convertionally starts with La and is usually written separately. Petergans (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not nonsense on the Web. There have been many textbooks published since the 1980s that put Lu under Y (I can't say whether they are the majority or the most influential). Just one example: Wulfsberg's Inorganic Chemistry. Wulfberg explains his reasoning in a footnote. In this letter to JCE, the authors looked at 35 textbooks for what they call "flyleaf periodic tables". If you look at the figure in the letter, among the textbooks published since 1984, 7 put La under Y, 7 put Lu, and 2 put all 15 lanthanides like IUPAC. IUPAC's table is ambiguous. It doesn't put any specific element under Y; it puts all the lanthanides there! --Itub (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm flabbergasted. I thought elements were put in the same group because they have the same electronic configuration. The trivalent ions of Sc, Y, La, Ac have a noble gas electronic configuration. Lu(III) does not. How can it be put in the same group? (Don't answer that). I stand by the word nonsense!Petergans (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll dare to answer despite your request. I'm relatively neutral on this issue because I think it is largely an arbitrary convention, but I enjoy playing devil's advocate. 1) the periodic table predates knowledge of electronic configurations, and sometimes exceptions are made in the name of chemical properties (or even in the name of layout, in my opinion), such as putting helium above neon instead of above beryllium (although some tables do put He above Be!) 2) the relationship between the electronic configurations of Y and La is essentially the same as the one between Al and Ga: Al and Ga are both s2p1, but Ga has a full d shell that Al doesn't have; Y and Lu are both s2d1, but Lu has a full f shell that Y doesn't have. Trivalent Lu also has a noble gas configuration, in the sense of having no s and p electron in the valence shell, same as trivalent gallium. 3) if one looks at the neutral atom, La has the same configuration as Y, but that's an anomaly in that it doesn't follow the aufbau rule. But we don't move elements such as copper and palladium to another group just because they happen to deviate from aufbau. Finally, one slight disadvantage of putting La under Y is that you end up with a discontinuous d block in the long form of the periodic table, which looks a bit odd in my opinion. --Itub (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(no indent) The counter to that argument is that, in the spirit of Mendeleev, elements a grouped together because of similarities in chemistry. Therefore it is the electronic configuration in the "group oxidation state" that counts, not the configuration of the atoms. Cu is the classic example [Ar]4s13d10 in the atom, but in Cu(I) the relative energies of 4s and 3d are reversed and it is the s electron which is lost on oxidation of the metal, so Cu sits comfortably in a group with Ag and Au. For Au, the f electrons are discounted as they belong to the filled 4-shell comprising 4s, 4p, 4d and 4f.

We can argue this one for ever, but what concerns me now is that the basic image of the long-form periodic table, which is used in WP for all the elements, puts Sc and Y above Lu and presents La and Ac as a group on their own. I believe that this is misleading as it does not clearly distinguish the lanthanide and actinide series from the main-group elements and transition metals. long-form periodic table is much better in that respect. Petergans (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greenwood was used as a reference in this article and Itub is correct about the definition of what is a group 3 element. --mav (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Greenwood puts La under Y (like Peter said), and discusses Sc, Y, La, and Ac on the same chapter (the lanthanides are on a separate chapter). So if you want this article to be consistent with the source, it should say La. --Itub (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct and thanks for the fix. --mav (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosch Spark Plugs
Yttrium is used in Bosch spark plugs: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=bosch%20yttrium&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.24.161 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thundersky / Winston Lithium Iron Phosphat batteries with Yttrium
The Chinese battery company Thundersky / Winston writes about the use of Yttrium to improve Lithium Iron Phosphat Batteries.--Pege.founder (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Yttrium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Yttrium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Standard Atomic Weight
The Standard atomic weight is way off. It's supposed to be ~88.90585 and it just says "2". I'd fix it myself but I'm not sure how to. Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It was in the template! Hard to find but easy to fix!! --Stone (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Older milestones
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format and de-stubbed by maveric149 on 14 Nov 2002. Elementbox converted 11:18, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:22, 28 June 2005).

Pronunciation
Why is the first letter of the element pronounced "i" as in inside and not "ue" as in mueller, when the village it named after is pronounced by the latter? The article does not explain this and the Swedish wikipedia does not indicate this.. Is it an error in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.60.118 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably because this word has been fully assimilated into English, and now obeys pronunciation rules of English. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The pronounciation guides seems to be original research as there is no source given for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.60.118 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick search on Merriam-Webster confirms it. I suspect all of them are ref'd to there except the superheavies which are mostly ref'd to periodicvideos.com, so perhaps it's an implied ref like we use for the other infobox fields to CRC?! Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ”Ue” as in ”Mueller” lol ... what Sorcerer’s Apprenctice could have predicted all the back on 30 August 2012? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "ue as in mueller" is referring to the actual, correct Germanic way of pronouncing "ue" and not the way it is usually pronounced in Robert Mueller's nameSbreheny (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Yttrium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/yttriumandcompounds/recognition.html

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 08:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Name
Who changed it from yttria to yttrium, and when? Squee3 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you actually understand what went on in the discoveries of the elements, although your attempts to "iron out" discovery dates ought to have suggested as much. Yttria is the oxide and was always the oxide; it was then regarded that finding the oxide was as good as finding the new element within (so we can't apply a single set of standards without creating a total upheaval of the discovery dates; the most we can do is just state every significant date that might count as the discovery year). Yttrium is and was always the metal (similarly to zirconia/zirconium, ceria/cerium, and magnesia/magnesium.) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Uses
Color televisions using CRT tubes are a historical use. They are basically obsolete. Currently Y containing phosphors are used in LED light bulbs. Can someone find a suitable reference and add the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.125.120 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @128.206.125.120 "Currently under development is yttrium-stabilized zirconia... as an oxygen sensor in automobile exhaust systems." Automobile exhaust systems are basically obsolete too. I would hope no one is expending time or money developing sensors for them. The reference is from 2006. Dgndenver (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yttrium. 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/20110722141106/http://newjournal.kcsnet.or.kr/main/j_search/j_download.htm?code=B050237 to http://newjournal.kcsnet.or.kr/main/j_search/j_download.htm?code=B050237

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) 23:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)