Talk:Arsenic

Can someone please add an NFPA 704 diamond for arsenic? There isn’t one in the NFPA data 2603:8080:D03:89D4:B181:97B6:1811:48B (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's been added under the "Toxicity" section, Reconrabbit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2025 and 4 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cstrom814 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hannahkinnunen.

— Assignment last updated by Hannahkinnunen (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@LittleHow: The primary source A deep-sea hydrothermal vent worm detoxifies arsenic and sulfur by intracellular biomineralization of orpiment (As2S3) that was published a few weeks ago was removed from this article by Smokefoot. If it is at all useful to use on Wikipedia I would recommend it on Paralvinella hessleri if such an article is created as its scope is far too narrow for the page about Arsenic. -- Reconrabbit 20:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern about scope and the preference for secondary sources on Arsenic. A few points for consideration:

• Secondary coverage: While the original study is a primary source, it has already received expert commentary in Nature and Science. That makes it more than a routine “new finding” (per WP:NOTNEWS) and gives us high-quality secondary coverage to rely on.
• Notability for Arsenic: The result is not trivial. Paralvinella hessleri was found to tolerate arsenic at >1% of its body mass (10,189 ± 2231.1 μg/g, n = 3, fresh weight), which according to their review is "about one magnitude higher than most known arsenic hyperaccumulators." That scale of bioaccumulation is extreme and seems worth a concise mention in an overview article on arsenic, not just in a species page.
• Editorial prominence: The article was selected as the cover feature for PLOS Biology. That's a strong signal that the journal's editors regarded it as particularly noteworthy.
• Appropriate use of primary sources: WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit citing primary articles; it cautions against relying on them for interpretation or contentious claims. Here, the numerical result is an unambiguous factual statement. Combined with Nature and Science coverage, it can be included with appropriate weight.
• Images: There is currently no illustration in Arsenic of its biological effects. However, Commons now hosts a freely licensed figure from the PLOS Biology paper: File:Paralvinella hessleri.png. This could provide a valuable visual anchor for readers and highlight the biological interaction in a way the text alone does not.
• Emerging coverage in other Wikipedias: A draft article on Paralvinella hessleri has already appeared on the Spanish Wikipedia es:Usuario:Sanador2.0/Paralvinella hessleri. This indicates international editorial interest in the species and suggests that a dedicated English article is a realistic next step. In the meantime, a concise mention in Arsenic seems justified, given the scale of the reported accumulation and its coverage in Nature and Science.
• On edit summaries: I’d also note that earlier use of terms like “spam/spammer” in edit summaries was unhelpful. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, neutral phrasing such as “reverted good-faith edit per WP:SECONDARY/WEIGHT” keeps the focus on content and policy rather than intent.-- LittleHow (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. If it is covered in secondary sources, then citing those secondary sources would allow for a lower-level discussion of the use of arsenic in this organism and imply greater importance than just citing the original paper. For a topic like "Arsenic" which appeals to a broad audience, for instance per WP:TECHNICAL it wouldn't do to expect "epithelium" or "orpiment" to be immediately understood without gloss or explanation. -- Reconrabbit 13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"Arsenic sublimes upon heating at atmospheric pressure, converting directly to a gaseous form without an intervening liquid state at 887 K (614 °C). However, at 817 °C and 28 atm, arsenic melts.[28] The triple point is at 3.63 MPa and 1,090 K (820 °C)"

the temperatures don't match up right here "1,090 K (820 °C)"" but 1,090 K ≈ 817 °C

also the formatting is odd at one point you only use Celsius while in the others you use Kelvin first and then put Celsius in parentheses

I would change that but I don't have the time to access the direct sources so I will kindly ask someone else to do it Omegagod3 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The temperatures didn't match because it was rounding up to 2 significant figures. I made all of the units in that section match the order of "kelvin (celcius)" using {{convert}}. -- Reconrabbit 15:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)