This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
It's impossible to give a single value of sufrace area for an entity that exhibits quantum mechanical behaviour, like a molecule. In that space-filling image I made, I think the surfaces enclose a volume in which the probability of finding each electron in the molecule is 90%. If you explain what calculation you are trying to do using surface area, maybe I or another chemist on WP can think of a strategy.
I'm trying to determine the extent that ventilation inhibits condensation, and the profile of condensation in ventilated and non-ventilated spaces. I think I need to take the van der Walls radius plus the effective radius of the solvent (which in this case is 80% N2 and 20% O2) following the method in http://www.chemcomp.com/journal/ligintdia.htm with already condensed complexes treated as coating on existing surfaces. However, that ignores spontanious condensation in air without a pre-existing surface being involved.
How would you go about predicting the condensation profile given different amounts of air movement through, say, a 10 x 10 x 10 m cube room with two opposite sides missing and an variable amount of airflow in m^3/s, and assuming a 290 g U bullet enters the room as a molten shower, with 40% of it burning, 50% of the combustion products in vapor form, and 67% of the vapor comprised of UO3(g) instead of UO2(g)?
Other assumptions would be that if it makes it out of the room, the vapor may condense on the ground (or itself) but no ceiling. After an hour, is more UO3(g) in un-condensed vapor form with a 3 m/s wind than in a completely enclosed 10 x 10 x 10 m cube room? LossIsNotMore09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, even if you can't answer the whole question, what is the appropriate surface area to use for gas reactivity statistical mechanics? LossIsNotMore02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should first read up on collision theory or perhaps buy a book on chemical kinetics. The method you linked to at chemcomp.com is more relevant to proteins and the like, in liquid and solid phases. Also, what do you mean by the term condensation profile? Read van der Waals radius, too. You may want to ask for advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, as condensation kinetics may, I fear, be a rather complex phenomenon.
Depleted uranium (DU) is commonly used in military armor and munitions, and thus, exposure of soldiers and non-combatants is potentially frequent and widespread. DU is considered a suspected human carcinogen, affecting the bronchial cells of the lung. However, few investigations have studied DU in human bronchial cells. Accordingly, we determined the cytotoxicity and clastogenicity of both particulate (water-insoluble) and soluble DU in human bronchial fibroblasts (WTHBF-6 cells). We used uranium trioxide (UO3) and uranyl acetate (UA) as prototypical particulate and soluble DU salts, respectively. After a 24 h exposure, both UO3 and UA induced concentration-dependent cytotoxicity in WTHBF-6 cells. Specifically, 0.1, 0.5, 1, and 5 μg/cm2 UO3 induced 99, 57, 32, and 1% relative survival, respectively. Similarly, 100, 200, 400, and 800 M UA induced 98, 92, 70, and 56% relative survival, respectively. When treated with chronic exposure, up to 72 h, of either UO3 or UA, there was an increased degree of cytotoxicity. We assessed the clastogenicity of these compounds and found that at concentrations of 0, 0.5, 1, and 5 μg/cm2 UO3, 5, 6, 10, and 15% of metaphase cells exhibit some form of chromosome damage. UA did not induce chromosome damage above background levels. There were slight increases in chromosome damage induced when we extended the UO3 treatment time to 48 or 72 h, but no meaningful increase in chromosome damage was observed with chronic exposure to UA.
We see formulae like UO2− 4 and U 2O2− 7 being thrown around here (presumably in analogy to Cr), despite the fact that the uranate article notes that no actual uranium oxyanions are known and that all uranates are ternary oxides. Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]