| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hanson" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2006 05:28:51 PM |
| Object: |
Re: silanate? |
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4444FAC1.DFC30F31@hate.spam.net...
*selah* wrote:
References state that "silanate" is the biological form of silicon
found in the body, but I haven't been able to find any information
on the structure of silanate.
[Al]
Google: == siliconate sugars == 392 hits
Siliconates are penta- & hexacoordinate silicon oxygen-coordinated
to polyols (e.g., sugars). If you warm ethylene glycol, KOH, and
silica gel (not in glassware) you get a lovely solution of the dianion
(-OCH2CH2O-)2Si-OCH2CH2O-Si(-OCH2CH2O-)2 ...... [1]
It has been published in mainline journals as the biological silicate
solubilization and transport mechanism, with examples. There is a
substantial difference in the reactivity of threo- and erythro-sugars.
[hanson]
Are you guys talking about same thing here? "Siliconates" usually
refers to derivatives of Si(OH)4, whereas "Silantes" are usually
pointing to Si with covalent bonds like in Silicones of the formulae
SiR3(OH), SiR2(OH)2, SiR3(OH)3... none of which has been found
to occur in any biological matrix.
What really interests me is a researched/documented chem scheme
from Granite/SiO2 + CO2 in H2O with all the steps all the way into the
plants. --- Are there any Silicon compounds founded and needed in
the mammalian organism? --- Are there any websites with that info?
AFA [1] for HOCH2CH2OH - glycol to be present in (higher and
warm blooded organisms I have doubts about, but for C3 or longer
chain carbohydrates that 5-6 coord Si4+ claim has possible merit.
--
hanson
.
|
|
| User: "*selah*" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
19 Apr 2006 03:08:26 AM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:DKd1g.4154$oQ2.1265@trnddc05...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4444FAC1.DFC30F31@hate.spam.net...
*selah* wrote:
References state that "silanate" is the biological form of silicon
found in the body, but I haven't been able to find any information
on the structure of silanate.
[Al]
Google: == siliconate sugars == 392 hits
Siliconates are penta- & hexacoordinate silicon oxygen-coordinated
to polyols (e.g., sugars). If you warm ethylene glycol, KOH, and
silica gel (not in glassware) you get a lovely solution of the
dianion
(-OCH2CH2O-)2Si-OCH2CH2O-Si(-OCH2CH2O-)2 ...... [1]
It has been published in mainline journals as the biological
silicate
solubilization and transport mechanism, with examples. There is a
substantial difference in the reactivity of threo- and
erythro-sugars.
[hanson]
Are you guys talking about same thing here? "Siliconates" usually
refers to derivatives of Si(OH)4, whereas "Silantes" are usually
pointing to Si with covalent bonds like in Silicones of the formulae
SiR3(OH), SiR2(OH)2, SiR3(OH)3... none of which has been found
to occur in any biological matrix.
What really interests me is a researched/documented chem scheme
from Granite/SiO2 + CO2 in H2O with all the steps all the way into the
plants. --- Are there any Silicon compounds founded and needed in
the mammalian organism? --- Are there any websites with that info?
AFA [1] for HOCH2CH2OH - glycol to be present in (higher and
warm blooded organisms I have doubts about, but for C3 or longer
chain carbohydrates that 5-6 coord Si4+ claim has possible merit.
--
hanson
http://www.mediref.info/Category_Details.aspx?Cat_ID=64:
Silicon
Silicon (Si) is present in biologic material as a silanate, an ether (or
ester-like) derivative of silicic acid which may play a role in the
structure of glycosaminoglycans and their protein complexes. Connective
tissues including aorta, trachea, tendon, bone, and skin and its
appendages contain much of the silicon that is retained in the body
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
19 Apr 2006 04:18:51 PM |
|
|
*selah* wrote:
<snip repost>
http://www.mediref.info/Category_Details.aspx?Cat_ID=64:
Silicon
Silicon (Si) is present in biologic material as a silanate, an ether (or
ester-like) derivative of silicic acid which may play a role in the
structure of glycosaminoglycans and their protein complexes. Connective
tissues including aorta, trachea, tendon, bone, and skin and its
appendages contain much of the silicon that is retained in the body
Your link appears to be broken as well as wrong. The ether/ester
compounds formed from silicic acid are called 'organosilicates.' As a
true chemist, I can forgive their error. It amazes me the number of
people who don't know the difference between silicon (used in
electronics) and silicone (used in cosmetic surgery).
The word "silanate" does *not* refer to a chemical species.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=silanate&ls=a
Google give us an insight:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=silanate&btnG=Google+Search
It is a *verb* used in dentistry to describe treatment of a surface
with a liquid called 'silane' (probably a derivative of true silane -
SiH4) to improve the efficacy of an adhesive.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11199656&dopt=Abstract
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
19 Apr 2006 09:32:41 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1145481531.797971.181950@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
*selah* wrote:
<snip repost>
http://www.mediref.info/Category_Details.aspx?Cat_ID=64:
Silicon
Silicon (Si) is present in biologic material as a silanate, an ether (or
ester-like) derivative of silicic acid which may play a role in the
structure of glycosaminoglycans and their protein complexes. Connective
tissues including aorta, trachea, tendon, bone, and skin and its
appendages contain much of the silicon that is retained in the body
Your link appears to be broken as well as wrong. The ether/ester
compounds formed from silicic acid are called 'organosilicates.' As a
true chemist, I can forgive their error.
Sorry to be didactic, but a true chemist would not only not call it an
error, but would instead recognize that there are different nomenclatures
used, both within the chemistry community as well as between chemists and
biologists or between chemists and physicists. For example, among chemists,
some people call them silicic acid esters, some call them organosilicates or
orthosilicates, some people call them silyl ethers, and I've even seen some
chemists call them silanolates (note the extra syllable). Part of the
confusion arises from how many OR groups are around the Si. Organosilicate,
strictly speaking, refers to an organic ester of silicic acid, or Si(OR)4.
What's the general term for the class of compounds that include R3SiOR,
R2Si(OR)2 and RSi(OR)3 as well? If the only thing that matters in the
chemistry being discussed are, for example two of the SiOR groups (for
example, as a covalent crosslink polymer-O-Si-O-polymer, which is what I
suspect the biological function of Si really is based on its ubiquity in
connective tissue), then how do you refer to those compounds in the general
sense so as not to imply the identity of the other two groups on Si?
Sure, silanate appears not to be IUPAC nomenclature, and one could argue
that, given the discussion it has generated within this newsgroup, it is not
even unambiguous nomenclature. That doesn't make it wrong, just unclear and
therefore not especially effective. Add to this the fact that it would
appear, based on a couple posts in this thread, that the biological/medical
community does use the name as described at the site you label as wrong.
The nomenclature may be perfectly clear in their circles, as long as it is
used unambiguously, and as long as they're not trying to use it to
communicate clearly with chemists.
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
20 Apr 2006 03:57:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sorry to be didactic, but a true chemist would not only not call it an
error,
A true empiricists cannot call an error anything else.
but would instead recognize that there are different nomenclatures
used, both within the chemistry community as well as between chemists and
biologists or between chemists and physicists.
I work with chemical lists every day, and I estimate that for every
IUPAC name there is for a given chemical there are anywhere from 1 to
20 synonyms - all used by people from a variety of lines of work and
for a variety of reasons. For most distinct chemical species (and for
a large number of distinct types of mixed substances) the CAS Registry
number is usually the preferred identifier for reasons of preventing
confusion.
For example, among chemists,
some people call them silicic acid esters, some call them organosilicates or
orthosilicates, some people call them silyl ethers, and I've even seen some
chemists call them silanolates (note the extra syllable). Part of the
confusion arises from how many OR groups are around the Si. Organosilicate,
strictly speaking, refers to an organic ester of silicic acid, or Si(OR)4.
'Organosilicate' can also refer to compounds of the form SiO(OR)2
'esters' of metasilicic acid (H2SiO3).
What's the general term for the class of compounds that include R3SiOR,
R2Si(OR)2 and RSi(OR)3 as well?
From:
http://www.ameronpsx.com/docs/presentation_polysiloxanes.pdf
"Oxysilane generally refers to silicon-based structures in which
silicon is bonded with up to four alkoxide or hydroxyl groups, which
enable certain condensation reactions. Oxysilanes can be monomeric or
polymeric. "
If the only thing that matters in the
chemistry being discussed are, for example two of the SiOR groups (for
example, as a covalent crosslink polymer-O-Si-O-polymer, which is what I
suspect the biological function of Si really is based on its ubiquity in
connective tissue), then how do you refer to those compounds in the general
sense so as not to imply the identity of the other two groups on Si?
I would call them "oxysilane-crosslinked polymers."
Sure, silanate appears not to be IUPAC nomenclature, and one could argue
that, given the discussion it has generated within this newsgroup, it is not
even unambiguous nomenclature. That doesn't make it wrong, just unclear and
therefore not especially effective.
Clarity in *scientific* communications is extremely important. Hence
chemists and physicists established the IUPAC and accept the
nomenclature IUPAC establishes as standard.
Non-scientists such as dental technicians and factory workers may use
whatever terms suit them for whatever reasons they want.
Add to this the fact that it would
appear, based on a couple posts in this thread, that the biological/medical
community does use the name as described at the site you label as wrong.
The nomenclature may be perfectly clear in their circles, as long as it is
used unambiguously, and as long as they're not trying to use it to
communicate clearly with chemists.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
(five says the audience)
Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
---Abraham Lincoln
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
20 Apr 2006 09:30:04 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1145566674.209118.300970@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Sorry to be didactic, but a true chemist would not only not call it an
error,
A true empiricists cannot call an error anything else.
Umm...I am a true chemist and a true empiricist, and maybe you're being
purposely obtuse, but my point is, it's not an error, it's just a different
naming convention. I consider someone who rigidly adheres to only one
naming convention a "true bureaucrat", because it has nothing to do with
good science.
but would instead recognize that there are different nomenclatures
used, both within the chemistry community as well as between chemists and
biologists or between chemists and physicists.
I work with chemical lists every day, and I estimate that for every
IUPAC name there is for a given chemical there are anywhere from 1 to
20 synonyms - all used by people from a variety of lines of work and
for a variety of reasons. For most distinct chemical species (and for
a large number of distinct types of mixed substances) the CAS Registry
number is usually the preferred identifier for reasons of preventing
confusion.
Maybe in your line of work, they would be the preferred identifier. But in
the real world, boy would scientific articles be unreadable if every
compound were called by its CAS Registry Number...or even by its IUPAC name.
I think we have to agree that clear communication scientific communication
happens all the time, and almost never uses a universally unambiguous naming
convention like IUPAC or CAS Nos. Are those people all wrong, too? No,
they just use a nomenclature that is unambiguous enough in their circle of
communication (however they might choose to define it) and is convenient
enough to be easily and quickly understood.
What's the general term for the class of compounds that include R3SiOR,
R2Si(OR)2 and RSi(OR)3 as well?
From:
http://www.ameronpsx.com/docs/presentation_polysiloxanes.pdf
"Oxysilane generally refers to silicon-based structures in which
silicon is bonded with up to four alkoxide or hydroxyl groups, which
enable certain condensation reactions. Oxysilanes can be monomeric or
polymeric. "
OK, that's one naming convention (probably not even IUPAC!) Why does that
make another one wrong?
Sure, silanate appears not to be IUPAC nomenclature, and one could argue
that, given the discussion it has generated within this newsgroup, it is
not
even unambiguous nomenclature. That doesn't make it wrong, just unclear
and
therefore not especially effective.
Clarity in *scientific* communications is extremely important. Hence
chemists and physicists established the IUPAC and accept the
nomenclature IUPAC establishes as standard.
And yet both chemists and physicists manage to make clear scientific
communications every day without ever once using IUPAC nomenclature
(including 99 % of all published chemical literature). Another hallmark of
effective scientific communication is that it be as simple as possible to
understand. If the chemical literature were written using IUPAC
momenclature for all compounds, I daresay it would be completely unreadable,
since everyone would spend so much time trying to decipher the names, that
they would quickly lose the point of the article.
Non-scientists such as dental technicians and factory workers may use
whatever terms suit them for whatever reasons they want.
Nothing to do with this situation--the article in question that used the
term was a biological article.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
(five says the audience)
Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
---Abraham Lincoln
Pithy, but again irrelevant. It's not like someone was misusing a noun that
already has another meaning, they had coined a new term for a class of
(presumably ill-defined) compounds.
My point, and it's my final thought on the matter, is if you're going to
tell someone they're "wrong" or have made "an error", you damn well better
have a good reason. And their just using a different naming convention
falls well short of damn good reason in most peoples' books. All your
bluster about "true chemist" and "true empiricist" and "*scientific*
communication" aside, people use naming conventions that work for the
communication they're trying to make--both unambiguous in the circle in
which they're communicating, but also easily and quickly understood so as
not to distract from the point being made.
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
21 Apr 2006 03:37:29 AM |
|
|
I agree with most of your comments concerning the need for expeditious
communication of chemical identities within any given field. Pragmatic
concerns should never be swept under a rug.
As I said, I work with chemical lists. Also MSDSs and other chemical
documents. They must include *all* available synonyms in searchable
fields because the MSDS database I work with includes several million
entries and is used by thousands of users in the broadest conceivable
variety of professional specialties. We must be accommodating to all
contexts and all regulatory authorities. Although we try to keep up
with all known synonyms, there is some ambiguity in naming. While the
use of the CAS Registry number has inherent weaknesses (it carries no
chemical information content) and occasional problems (the most common
typographical errors yield an invalid number, but suggest no
correction), it serves well as an identifier for computer searches and
to distinguish materials that may share a synonym name.
The particular word in question - "silanate" - is seen readily to be
used at least as often in the capacity of a verb as a noun *by the same
group of people.* It's use is not consistent even among its small
community of users.
If the use of "silanate" as a noun were a 'convention' even in a very
limited community, one would expect that the convention would require
its use in an unambiguous role, as *either* a noun or a verb.
"*****" is another word that could be either a noun or a verb, but it's
frequent and widespread use has no effect on reducing its ambiguity.
When it is contextually necessary to be unambiguous, there are other
words that are used.
The Lincoln quotation is relevant. Whether the word is "silanate" or
"leg," among its users its use must be consistent to be meaningful.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: silanate? |
21 Apr 2006 10:10:00 AM |
|
|
ahahaha.... "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1145608649.131101.193470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Pragmatic concerns should never be swept under a rug.
The Lincoln quotation is relevant. Whether the word is "silanate" or
"leg," among its users its use must be consistent to be meaningful.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[hanson]
..... ahahaha... well, be a little but more poetic here so that your
3-liner really brings the point across and say:
:: > Whether the word is "silanate" or "*****", or "vagina" or "*****"
:: > or "twatt" or "hole" or "honey pot" or "snatch" or "muff" or "fotze",
:: > among its users its use must be consistent to be meaningful...
.... and I bet it is, ..... pragmatically speaking... ahahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
