Talk:Gallium(III) sulfate

Maybe rename "gallium sulfates"

Maybe rename "gallium sulfates".

Otherwise, the article is pretty thin because, inconveniently, there is no thing as gallium sulfate. Should we revise iron(II) sulfate to include every composition that contains iron(II), sulfate, and anything else? How far does this net cast? And for what purpose? In the end, it doesnt matter too much because the topic is so esoteric.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a product that can be purchased. However what is called gallium sulfate is probably the basic salt. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no "it". --Smokefoot (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it can be purchased gives a lot of probability that the basic salt exists. It also has a lot of information about it. Keresluna (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a separate article describing the basic salt and describing the other compounds. Keresluna (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article could be called basic gallium sulfate (used a bit) or hydronium galloalunite (used about twice) or oxonium galloalunite (used once), if we are not using gallium sulfate title. For the double salts, guanidinium gallium sulfate and dimethylammonium gallium sulfate look to be notable in themselves, but the others just need to be collected together somewhere, and I thought this was a suitable header to put them under. I would be happy enough for gallium sulfates as the term does get a bit of use in literature. Commercial suppliers appear just to use the term "gallium sulfate", perhaps with hydrate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth explaining why gallium sulfate doesn't exist, either here or at Gallium#Aqueous_chemistry. Readers may well wonder about it considering aluminium sulfate and indium(III) sulfate exist. --Ben (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can find out the answer to that. I can make a guess, but will look at historic studies of the composition and crystal structure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: Z. Kristallogr. (1995) 210, 427-431, available as CSD entry 1639555 (which is really ICSD entry 79304). This determination is referenced on page 153 of A. J. Downs, Chemistry of Aluminium, Gallium, Indium and Thallium, Springer, 2012. --Ben (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article implies that the anhydrous substance exists. There is also this one https://www.finechem-mirea.ru/jour/article/viewFile/93/94 written in Cyrillic whicl claims that an 18 hydrate exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work. Generally, inorganic chemists use Ga(III) as a (diamagnetic) surrogate for Fe(III).--Smokefoot (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ascription to minerals

The sentence "Double gallium sulfates are known with composition NaGa3(SO4)2(OH)6, KGa3(SO4)2(OH)6, RbGa3(SO4)2(OH)6, NH4Ga3(SO4)2(OH)6. These are isostructural with jarosite and alunite, and these minerals can have gallium substituted for iron or aluminium" is wrong. A mineral can't be synthetic. See: https://www.ima-mineralogy.org/. Eudialytos (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOu seem to have misunderstood. The natural minerals jarosite and alunite contain some gallium naturally. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I got it very well. First, it is not about the admixtures.The sentence cited clearly suggests (it says "these minerals") the compounds listed to be/occur as minerals, which is wrong.

Second, an admixture do not make a mineral. Jarosite is KFe3(SO4)2(OH)6, and not KGa3(SO4)2(OH)6. In other worlds: jarosite is always Fe-dominant, and never Ga-dominant.

Third, SOME, but not all alunite-(super)group species bear traces of Ga.

Finally, if a sentence is misunderstood, then the sentence is wrong and needs rewriting.

Thus, none of the listed chemicals is a mineral (yet).

Refs.:

https://mineralogy-ima.org/Minlist.htm

https://www.mindat.org/chemsearch.php?inc=O%2CGa%2CNa%2CS%2C&exc=&class=0&sub=Search+Minerals

https://www.mindat.org/chemsearch.php?inc=S%2CO%2CGa%2CK%2C&exc=&class=0&sub=Search+Minerals

https://www.mindat.org/chemsearch.php?inc=Ga%2CS%2CO%2CRb%2C&exc=&class=0&sub=Search+Minerals

Eudialytos (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been misunderstood, I have rewritten it to make it clear what the pronouns were referring to. As you say the artificial compounds were not minerals. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and understanding.Eudialytos (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]