Talk:Nitro compound

I've removed this:

In nucleophilic aromatic substitutions the nitro group is replaced by the hydroxide anion to a phenol and by an alkoxy nucleophile to an aromatic ether.

The linked page doesn't support it, I'd say it's an error by the original author. If not, please cite?

Csari 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can any one support this statement: Aliphatic nitro compounds are reduced to amines with hydrochloric acid and an iron catalyst - I have tried and failed before. Is there a good reference that might help me? - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reaction works! Seen it work wit nitrobenzene derivat.--Stone 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an aromatic nitro group rather than an aliphatic one. They are a lot easier to reduce. - - Curious Gregor ^TALK 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ter Meer reaction

Structure 3 is not a nitronate, but a nitronic acid, and what happens to the ion 2 is not a isomerization (the carbanion and the nitronate are both mesomeric structures of ONE ion) but a protonation. --FK1954 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed: not isomerization but protonation, disagree: not nitronate but nitronic acid V8rik (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 and 3 are clearly tautomers. The name nitronic acid makes sense for 3 but I'm not sure if this is accurate (if it is, the nitronate page needs to be changed). The first 2 steps just show how the tautomerization is thought to happen. I haven't read the papers, however the carbon in 1 is pretty electrophilic, why would 1 need to tautomerize and where does the H of the OH on the nitronic acid go? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impure

Could someone expand/clarify "They are often highly explosive, especially when the compound contains more than one nitro group and are impure." in terms of "impure"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.172.50 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how to clarify that. It means that the compound is not pure/is contaminated/has a small quantity of another compound mixed into or dissolved in it. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The pKa on other page says 10,000-fold different value for the pKa which means one wikipedia page is EGREGIOUSLY innaccurate but I'm just an orgo student so hoping an expert will review both pages I'm linking below in bulletpoints:

and choose which pKa is accurate, and I'll update both pages once somebody with at least 5 orgo edits under their belt (or, equivalently, a barnstar which bolsters the attainment of a chemistry degree) tells me which pKa they believe is correct. Thanks, Adwctamia (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]