Talk:Fluoroboric acid

"Pure"

Is this available as a pure form? Article says no, then talks about pure HBF4 using acetic anhydride. "Neat" HBF4 is also mentioned further down. What does "anhydrous solution" mean? A solution in acetic anhydride? Or does it refer to the pure compound? The Oxford MSDS appears to talk of the pure form, instead of a solution. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to an "anhydrous solution" of fluoroboric acid is from a 1979 paper about how to prepare TTF fluoroborate salt. They prepared anhydrous, or water-free, fluoroboric acid using an excess of acetic anhydride, which reacts with all the water, but now the fluoroboric acid is somewhat more dilute, and in a new solvent of acetic acid and acetic anhydride. Fluoborate (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "pure form" is the etherate, a 1:1 molar mixture of HBF4 and diethyl ether. Other than that all I know are the aqueous solutions. As far as I can recall, this is not available as a pure compound, it would be horribly unstable. 24 June 2016

pKa

The pKa of this acid has been determined many times and has many different values. I suggest that it be removed, because the -0.4 figure is both unreliable, practically unverifiable, and loaded with caveats. I can dig up references later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.113.33 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new pKa appears to have been added by the research group that specializes in pKa measurements. Wikipedia usually doesnt like primary references but the value is fundamental it seems. If readers want to use a value from Wikipedia and are provided with the journal citation, they are forewarned. Also the value looks reasonable. Does anyone really care if they are off by 2-3 pKa units? --Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear which reference contains this spurious -0.4 figure. If it's to be included and used in the ChemBox, this should be made more obvious. "ChemBox references" leads to a page indicating general sources for all chemboxes, which is not appropriate. Also, the -0.4 pKa figure seems to have been added by Smokefoot back in 2007, and changed from a previous figure of -4.9, a number equally spurious and once again without an obvious reference. The change makes reference to EROS, which in turn references a Russian paper from 1978, whose title suggests that these pKa data are from organic media, making the number shown here less useful than might be thought. FInally, it is laughable that one would defend a suspicious piece of data with "does anyone really care?" Of course people care, otherwise why write it in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.113.33 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming nonsense process needs elaboration or correction

The process "A mixture of CrO3, HBF4, and sulfonic acids in conjunction with a cathode treatment give tin-plated steel" requires a bit of elaboration (where does the tin come from? What happens to the Chromium?) or perhaps correction (give chromium-plated steel, perhaps?)198.91.146.6 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are melting and boiling points listed if the pure form doesn't exist?

The article currently lists a melting point and boiling point, but I can't find the relevant citation (the next cited source is for the pKa), and the article says a few times that the pure form does not exist. However, it seems like a 1:1 stoichiometric mixture of HF and BF3 could probably be prepared (and a preparation with an excess of HF is mentioned in the article), and although this might not actually have the structure of H+[BF4]-, it is possible that such a mixture could be described here. I may try to do my own research, considering my username. Although I prefer organic chemistry. Fluoborate (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "oxonium" with "hydronium" in the special case of hydronium

This article used "the oxonium ion" to refer to hydronium several times, which strikes me as unusual and possibly frankly incorrect. "Oxonium" is not a specific term, it includes hydronium but also protonated alcohols, protonated ethers, and trialkyl oxoniums (which are especially important in this article). Because the trialkyl oxonium fluoroborate salts are so important, I can understand why hydronium is being referred to as "oxonium" in this article. I understand, but I don't agree, so I have fixed it. The special case of H3O+ is hydronium, the image file uses this name, and now the image captions and article use this ion name. Fluoborate (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]