Talk:Molybdenum trioxide

About crystal structure

Caption for the crystal structure says that:

A section of the chain comprising edge-sharing octahedra. Oxygen atoms above and below the chain link to other chains to build the layer.

But I'd suggest to say "Oxygen atoms back and front" in place of "Oxygen atoms above and below".

If "Oxygen atoms above and below" is linked, two non-bridging oxygens exists for each Mo atom, in back and front.

However, it contradicts with the text

The octahedra have one short molybdenum-oxygen bond to a non-bridging oxygen.

In addition, chemical formula will be Mo₂O₇, not MoO₃.

From the crystal structure shown in [1], it is not "Oxygen atoms above and below," but "Oxygen atoms back and front" that are bridging the chains each other. In addition, the shortest Mo-O bond, already mentioned as of non-linked oxygen, corresponds with "Oxygen atoms above and below".

Therefore I prefer to use "Oxygen atoms back and front" instead of "Oxygen atoms above and below".

I already changed ja:酸化モリブデン(VI). Thank you. --Neo chemistry (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me report it was fixed, because discussion has been stopped. --Neo chemistry (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

More about crystal structure

There is apparently a metastable (β) form of MoO₃ with a WO₃-like structure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarron|first=E. M.|date=1986|title=β-MoO 3 : a metastable analogue of WO 3|url=http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C39860000336|journal=J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun.|language=en|issue=4|pages=336–338|doi=10.1039/C39860000336|issn=0022-4936}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Balendhran|first=Sivacarendran|last2=Walia|first2=Sumeet|last3=Nili|first3=Hussein|last4=Ou|first4=Jian Zhen|last5=Zhuiykov|first5=Serge|last6=Kaner|first6=Richard B.|last7=Sriram|first7=Sharath|last8=Bhaskaran|first8=Madhu|last9=Kalantar-zadeh|first9=Kourosh|date=2013-08-26|title=Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Trioxide and Dichalcogenides|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/adfm.201300125|journal=Advanced Functional Materials|language=en|volume=23|issue=32|pages=3952–3970|doi=10.1002/adfm.201300125}}</ref> Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I put your first ref into the article.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CAS report

For MoO₃: 43177 articles, patents, etc. as of today, 21,958 since 2009, of which 89 are reviews. See WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

MoO₃ Field-Effect Biosensing

@Smokefoot: I'm not sure I agree with your comment and your revert concerning MoO₃ FEB. I am a specialist in the field of 2D-like materials for FEB and have been seeing dozens of articles on this. How many journals should one cite for it not to be seen as secondary? Or maybe I'm wrong I mean I don't specifically work with MoO₃, but I work with similar materials; what makes you think it is secondary? Please enlighten me. Just here to learn. --Blue.painting (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well thanks for the note. You are asking one of the existential questions for Wikipedia chemistry. What to cite among the ocean of literature? About 900 journal articles focus on or mention CAS 1313-27-5 (i.e. MoO3) so far in 2019. So we should cite 1% of these, 10%? Which ones?

When one thinks of MoO3 broadly (the point of an encyclopedia), what is the key information that the public reader (including chemists) should be exposed to? I am pretty sure that it is not your journal report (or my reports on other areas of chemistry in my journals). No, the solution to this quandry is (i) focus on general info and (ii) to cite general sources, i.e. the guidelines WP:TERTIARY and WP:SECONDARY. Otherwise it is caprice. You happen to discuss your fav paper and a general reader comes away with the impression that is important. In terms of words in the article, the reader comes away with the impression that your work is comparable in importance to the industrial synthesis of formaldehyde.

MoO3 is an important material in catalysis, processing of Mo ores, and corrosion. If we are so concerned about helping the readership, why arent we helping to expand on what MoO3 is really important for? Paltry information on catalysis, metallurgy, and ore processing is currently provided. Paltry! That information is what is needed from would-be editors - we need editors committed to helping readers by focusing on general stuff.

With regard to Field-Effect Biosensing, it is the kind of narrow editing we all do on unimportant, pet topics. Harmless and fun, go for it. I do that all the time (see 1,1-Bis(chloromethyl)ethylene). But for MoO3, you're talking reality that matters, and readers need calibrated editors.

For what its worth, I recommend that scientists contribute to Wikipedia outside of their specialty. We all (should) know a lot of general, encyclopedic information that should be provided to the public readers of this encyclopedia (note: not Chemical Reviews, not Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, not Advances in Solid State Physics). When we get close to our area, many of us lose perspective, often manifested in COI and a focus on narrow detail.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Wow thanks for the response, this was a bit humbling for me! You're right and this makes sense, and yeah it's good to have an approach for "what does one cite when there are so many articles" type of thing and so this was informative for me to better understand that process. And also was useful to understand/learn about the "pet topic phenomenon". --Blue.painting (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)