This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Under 'Definitions and general characteristics' the article stated that "the donor is a Lewis base". The hydrogen bond donor is a proton donor or electron pair acceptor, i.e. it is a Lewis acid, not base. The proton acceptor is the base. Changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:AB5:7A00:D49E:1A5A:7F78:DDAB ( talk) 19:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
About this : "The initial theory of hydrogen bonding proposed by Linus Pauling suggested that the hydrogen bonds had a partial covalent nature. This remained a controversial conclusion until the late 1990's when NMR techniques were employed by F. Cordier et al. to transfer information between hydrogen-bonded nuclei, a feat that would only be possible if the hydrogen bond contained some covalent character." and the reference given (Cordier et al., J. Magn Res. 1999, 140, 510-512): I have just looked at this article and it is clearly written in it that other examples of J coupling through hydrogen bonds were known at least one year before them. The most ancient article about this phenomenon seems to be : A. J. Dingley and S. Grzesiek, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120, 8293–8297 (1998). I hesitated to modify the article myself as I am not sure to understand: is the observation of such a coupling an evidence of the covalent nature of the hydrogen bond ? Or is there something new and decisive on this question in the article of Cordier et al. ? I wonder because they don't claim it at all in their article...
The section on synthetic polymers contains no citations for any of the information. None of the sources in the References discuss the topic. Any possible sources? Lnj19 ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hydrogen bond/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content and important mechanism in biochemistry and molecular biology. - tameeria 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hydrogen bonding: Homing in on a tricky chemical concept
Paul Needham
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Volume 44, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 51-65
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.04.001
Christopher King ( talk) 18:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph here seems to contain a contradictory statement. The first sentence states (emphasis mine):
A hydrogen bond ... is a primarily electrostatic force of attraction ...
The final sentence then claims:
While hydrogen bonding has both covalent and electrostatic contributions ... the primary contribution is covalent.
As far as I can tell, these two statements directly contradict each other. That said, I don't personally have enough knowledge to edit—could someone with the appropriate expertise please reword or clarify?
~ Rent-Yr-Chemicals ( talk) 02:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
how can we say that chloroform have h bonds with C as donor? what are the examples where S and Cl act as donors?
also i wanted to know if H bonding occurs by lone pair present on donor or by partial negative charge deveoped on it? Vanshita poddar ( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)vanshita poddar
Stubby article with one reference that is not mentioned at parent topic. Ost ( talk) 06:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The article says there are donors other than O-H, N-H, and F–H, and hints that possibly there are acceptors other than an electronegative atom with a lone pair. But the rest of the article does not give any such examples. The classic model, with only those three types of donors and only O/N lone-pair acceptors seems to be fairly standard even up through college-level intro-orgo textbooks. Our article needs to be expanded with examples of these other types. Even simple aromatic C–H are known as donors (benzene and ferrocene as an interesting specific example doi:10.1021/om4004972), and aromatic π systems as acceptors (with suggestions "XH...π" are even common in biological systems). doi:10.1021/jp410917x DMacks ( talk) 02:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding the source, so I did not change it, but it does not seem like the source supports that "the one (atom) covalently bound to the hydrogen is the proton donor." The source linked does not seem to mention a "proton donor", so it would be best to refer to it as hydrogen bond donor, as this source defines the wording. More importantly, the whole group is referred to as the donor, in the linked IUPAC source, with no reference to a single atom being a donor. "X–H represents the hydrogen bond donor" [1] implies that the X, H and the bond (the group itself) is rightly referred to as a donor and not any individual atom. This problem also exists in the nomenclature of the introduction, if it is an actual problem in the definitions section. Another source would need to be used for "donating group" to be used this way, and the statement that IUPAC recommends this nomenclature would also need to be removed. MScottH ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Matter and Materials 41.121.55.88 ( talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Under 'Definitions and general characteristics' the article stated that "the donor is a Lewis base". The hydrogen bond donor is a proton donor or electron pair acceptor, i.e. it is a Lewis acid, not base. The proton acceptor is the base. Changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:AB5:7A00:D49E:1A5A:7F78:DDAB ( talk) 19:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
About this : "The initial theory of hydrogen bonding proposed by Linus Pauling suggested that the hydrogen bonds had a partial covalent nature. This remained a controversial conclusion until the late 1990's when NMR techniques were employed by F. Cordier et al. to transfer information between hydrogen-bonded nuclei, a feat that would only be possible if the hydrogen bond contained some covalent character." and the reference given (Cordier et al., J. Magn Res. 1999, 140, 510-512): I have just looked at this article and it is clearly written in it that other examples of J coupling through hydrogen bonds were known at least one year before them. The most ancient article about this phenomenon seems to be : A. J. Dingley and S. Grzesiek, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120, 8293–8297 (1998). I hesitated to modify the article myself as I am not sure to understand: is the observation of such a coupling an evidence of the covalent nature of the hydrogen bond ? Or is there something new and decisive on this question in the article of Cordier et al. ? I wonder because they don't claim it at all in their article...
The section on synthetic polymers contains no citations for any of the information. None of the sources in the References discuss the topic. Any possible sources? Lnj19 ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hydrogen bond/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content and important mechanism in biochemistry and molecular biology. - tameeria 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hydrogen bonding: Homing in on a tricky chemical concept
Paul Needham
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Volume 44, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 51-65
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.04.001
Christopher King ( talk) 18:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph here seems to contain a contradictory statement. The first sentence states (emphasis mine):
A hydrogen bond ... is a primarily electrostatic force of attraction ...
The final sentence then claims:
While hydrogen bonding has both covalent and electrostatic contributions ... the primary contribution is covalent.
As far as I can tell, these two statements directly contradict each other. That said, I don't personally have enough knowledge to edit—could someone with the appropriate expertise please reword or clarify?
~ Rent-Yr-Chemicals ( talk) 02:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
how can we say that chloroform have h bonds with C as donor? what are the examples where S and Cl act as donors?
also i wanted to know if H bonding occurs by lone pair present on donor or by partial negative charge deveoped on it? Vanshita poddar ( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)vanshita poddar
Stubby article with one reference that is not mentioned at parent topic. Ost ( talk) 06:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The article says there are donors other than O-H, N-H, and F–H, and hints that possibly there are acceptors other than an electronegative atom with a lone pair. But the rest of the article does not give any such examples. The classic model, with only those three types of donors and only O/N lone-pair acceptors seems to be fairly standard even up through college-level intro-orgo textbooks. Our article needs to be expanded with examples of these other types. Even simple aromatic C–H are known as donors (benzene and ferrocene as an interesting specific example doi:10.1021/om4004972), and aromatic π systems as acceptors (with suggestions "XH...π" are even common in biological systems). doi:10.1021/jp410917x DMacks ( talk) 02:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding the source, so I did not change it, but it does not seem like the source supports that "the one (atom) covalently bound to the hydrogen is the proton donor." The source linked does not seem to mention a "proton donor", so it would be best to refer to it as hydrogen bond donor, as this source defines the wording. More importantly, the whole group is referred to as the donor, in the linked IUPAC source, with no reference to a single atom being a donor. "X–H represents the hydrogen bond donor" [1] implies that the X, H and the bond (the group itself) is rightly referred to as a donor and not any individual atom. This problem also exists in the nomenclature of the introduction, if it is an actual problem in the definitions section. Another source would need to be used for "donating group" to be used this way, and the statement that IUPAC recommends this nomenclature would also need to be removed. MScottH ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Matter and Materials 41.121.55.88 ( talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)