Talk:Solubility of fullerenes

Extracting from fullerene talk page

The next three sections were brought over from the Talk:fullerene page, since they refer to the "Solubility" section that was extracted to create this article.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Solubility

Add solbility of C70, but the value between the two papers were different, thus only C70's added, C60's was not updated. (1) R. S. Ruoff; D. S. Tse; R. Malhotra et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN A VARIETY OF SOLVENTS", Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1993, 97, 3379. (2) N. Sivaraman; R. Dhamodaran; I. Kaliappan et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN ORGANIC-SOLVENTS", Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1992, 57, 6077. Topliuchao (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Excuse my ignorance, what's the source of this sentence "Some fullerene structures are not soluble because they have a small band gap between the ground and excited states." and there is no reference about this, and I have never heard anything about it. Could someone mention references for this one? Thank you. Topliuchao (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: From the Solubility table: methanol (0.000 04 mg/mL, * ), water (1.3×10−11 mg/mL, * ), pentane (0.004 mg/mL, 0.002 mg/mL)… The water solubility is given as 1.3E-11, which is many [orders of] magnitudes less than 0.004 (4E-3), so it would belong at the very end of the table, rather than the middle. Is the sort wrong or is the value wrong? Wikidity (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

See renewed discussion on this subject, at Talk section date this date. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of solubility data

It is the long experience of pharma that solubility determination is extraordinarily method dependent, and to an extent laboratory dependent, @Wikidity:, @Topliuchao:, making the appearance of a table, primary source-derived, and lacking all direct indication of sources for each line, and so divorced from method, and additionally bearing ranges of values from 10E-11 to about 10 mg per mL, and variability in stated precisions including thousands of a mg… all very suspicious, and if you will, in my experience, silly. First, if the table is to stay, it must have citations, value by value. Second, methods need to be summarized, one sentence each source. Third, a reasonable rounding of the data should be imposed, likely article by article (based on their stated discussion of methods and precision): did each citation measure each compound once—in which case they are near useless—or in replicates, and if indeed replicates, what is the stated error for the repeat measures? Finally, as the section tag states, summarizing data is the better approach from primary sources, until the experts review the data. Solubilities are notoriously finicky (pharma experience), and measures from one lab are bound to be inaccurate past the first decimal place or so; if not expressing all in scientific notation, to the same precision for each report—then summarize all tabulated data in 4-5 phrases/sentences, in general terms:

• "insoluble in water and polar ptotic solvents (<x.x mg/mL, e.g. MeOH, x.x mg/mL), essentially insoluble in straight chain hydrocarbons (<x.x mg/mL, e.g. n-C₇H₁₆, x.x mg/mL), … and most soluble in polar aromatics (>x.x mg/mL, e.g. 1,4-dichlorobenzene, x.x mg/mL)"

and cite the sources for full information. (The principles and patterns from the papers are most important; people are here to learn, not to use Wikipedia data to guide their dissolution of fullerenes at home.)

Finally, as previous discussions have alluded, the table begs statement of the organizing principle for ordering and adding new solvent data. One could provide an index of solvent polarity, ordering listed solvents according to that index. That would be the professional way to do this, in my opinion (if I cannot persuade you to can the whole thing). Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Solubility table data - refs and signif figures

The values appearing in the table (and to an extent in the text) appear without individual citations, and present data with differing precisions based on differing methods, which, given the near exclusive use of primary sources is bad form for science writing—and should be considered for large scale replacement with sentence generalizations based on secondary sources, such as "sparingly soluble in hydrocarbons of length... (< x.x mg/mL) but increased solubility in polar aromatics such as 1,4-dichlorobenzene (~ x.x mg/mL)," etc. Solubility reported sans method to the thousandth of a mg is simply silly.
(Was editorial note on fullerene, section "Solubility", dated August 2015. Moved here by me. No opinion myself.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)