Talk:Aluminium silicate

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Aluminium silicate is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Group/Subgroup Distinction[edit]

The pages make an important distinction: Aluminosilicates are a group of minerals dominated by aluminum and silicon but possibly including other cations like K, Na, Ca, Fe, or Mg. This is a very large group. Aluminium silicates are a group of minerals containing only aluminum and silicon. It is a much smaller group.

Consider Zeolites, as seen on https://www.mindat.org/min-4395.html, which are aluminosilicates but not aluminium silicates. Please keep both pages. 129.72.173.176 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, aluminosilicates are a specific type of glass material, largely made of silicon dioxide with other elements added in. Aluminum silicate, on the other hand, has approximately equal amounts of aluminum and silicon and often more aluminum than silicon. Aluminum silicates are not glass materials. Both pages should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.71 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Doesn't aluminum silicate have Al(SiO3)3 as its formula? Silicate is SiO3 with 2- charge.(69.245.43.115 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not according to the reference. Also, silicate suggests that the name applies to a broader group of functional groups than just SiO₃. Bryan 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mohs hardness[edit]

I corrected the listing of 1-2 which seems way out of place as far as I can tell, considering the three possible minerals that are aluminum silicate have hardness vastly higher than this, and my own experience with synthetic aluminum silicate is consistent with a hardness up to somewhere above 7. The hardest of my own material easily scratches quartz and is not scratched by quartz; but is still very easily scratched, cut or worked by diamond-tipped tools, however some other specimens have been similar to or less hard than quartz. Zaphraud (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured out what the problem here is.. the original citation (now here instead..) is from a site selling aluminum silicate probably in a hydrated powder form, for the purpose of manufacturing its solid form (spark plugs casings, etc).

Merger proposal[edit]

This page and Aluminosilicate appear very similar and should be merged. I've noticed that mergers have been proposed in the past but there never seems to have been any real discussion about the merits and failings of doing so. Best as I can tell one page is written from a chemistry perspective and the other more from a geology/mineralogy angle but to my chemists eye the content seems very similar. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

Aluminium silicate and aluminiosilicate seem to be distinct classes of materials. While the network of aluminium silicates does not show any charges, the aluminosilicate is negatively charged. Thus in aluminosilicates positive counterions (usually alkali/earth alkali) are present (cf. zeolithes).Draqlasice (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class 2/1B Carcinogen status isn't mentioned anywhere[edit]

It is mentioned on the wiki page under "types" for aluminium silicate wool (ASW) on the Mineral Wool wiki page but isn't on the aluminium silicate wiki page.

And of course the chinese ebay seller that is selling it said that it was "green" and "safe".

I should know how bad this is, as I just screwed up and probably exposed myself to a carcinogen in close quarters several times after wrongly believing that "aluminium silicate" was NOT carcinogenic when it is. I did google searches for 'aluminium silicate" and this page was the only one that popped up in google, no mention anywhere of it being carcinogenic. You have to instead search for "aluminium silicate wool" before you come across any mention anywhere of it being carcinogenic.

I wrongly installed it in the entire interior of my car as a fireproof substitute for closed cell foam over the top of dynamat noise insulation. I'm now going to have to don a full face resiprator and remove it entirely, using baby wipes to clean the plastic surfaces and mineral turps and tissues/paper towel for all of the metal surfaces. Then decontaminate my clothing and myself.

I need someone to do the research for me, I'm not a chemist or a scientist and clearly I'm a lousy researcher. DO WE have a problem here of aluminium silicate being carcinogenic or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushHour (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/WARNING-Possibly-CARCINOGENIC-Aluminium-Silicate-insulation/m-p/2234292#M101711

The only hope that I have is that if the ASW that I purchased is an alkaline earth silicate type (AES). Because if it is then it will biodegrade in my lungs: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08958378.2018.1513610 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushHour (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]