Talk:Nitrogen oxide

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

there are only 5 oxides of nitrogen there is also Dinitrogen Tetroxide N2O4 this is not a contributor to air pollution this oxide runs in equalibrium with NO2, produced naturally in low amounts.

2NO2 (g) <--> N2O4

reference: Laidler, Greg; 1991; Environmental Chemistry, An Australian Perspective, 2nd Ed; Longman Cheshire; Melbourne, Australia

NOx should have its own page

Given the atmospheric importance of NO and NO2 which have a fast cycle coupling them and the regulatory use of NOx for the sum of NO plus NO2 (in atmospheric chemistry other oxides of nitrogen are not part of NOx) I do not think that NOx should be part of the Nitrogen oxide page. I therefore call for the reinstatement of the NOx page.--NHSavage 07:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The majority of this page is currently discussion about NOx instead of Nitrogen oxides in general. I've inserted a tag at the appropriate location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayob (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will split it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Prompt NOx description

There's no explanation as to what is Prompt NOx and how its formed. It might also be interesting to add the names of the people normally credited with discovering these NOx formation routes (Zeldovich in the Thermal NOx case and Fenimore in the Prompt NOx case)

I was lured to this page as I was about to ask what "prompt NOx" is myself. I was thinking of asking the person responsible for originating the text but they were an IP number long inactive with only 1 edit. Can anyone enlighten me or provide a reference? By the way, not a bad idea about the discoverers. -Onceler 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, internal combustion engines emit carbon moNO_xious phew!!!mes. Anthony Appleyard 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOx scavenging

Could someone add material on NOx scavenging? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium dioxide

According to the French newspaper Ouestfrance a asphalt concrete including Titanium dioxide, 6 to 8 kg per square meter, destruct a substantial part of NOx. 216.86.113.16 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning

Isn't lightning also a significant source of NOx in the atmosphere [1]? Jim.henderson 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section concerning this, since it was sourced in the thunderstorm article. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N2O3 structure

Is the depicted structure of N2O3 correct as O=N-N=O=O i.e. with one N of valence 3 and one N of valence 5? I've always thought it were O=N-O-N=O i.e. with both N of valence 3. Drirpeter 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct, and is better described as nitrogen(II,IV) oxide rather than nitrogen(III) oxide.

See http://www.webelements.com/compounds/nitrogen/dinitrogen_trioxide.html for confirmation.

Ben 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading about NOx

Parts of this article are highly misleading. NOx is not considered a greenhouse gas. It doesn't say so in the article either, but nor is there any mention of why NOx is regulated. The reason for the regulation is that NOx emissions causes acidification of water and soil, and also is the cause of adverse effects such as respiratory diseases and immune deficiencies among asthmatics and other vulnerable groups.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a greenhouse gas, and it is included in the Kyoto Protocol, but regulations on emissions have not been widely implemented in national legislations, and it is not part of most existing cap and trade systems.

I strongly agree with earlier posting by NHSavage that NOx should have it's own article. Also,

Not being a biochemist I would strongly prefer not being the one to make these changes, but if no one else rises to challenge, I will take a look at it in a couple of weeks, when I have the time.

80.64.206.190 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a whack at it. It still could use some expansion regarding specific legislation, though. Should we mention the Nitrogen Oxide Protocol? Feezo (Talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage in atmospheric chemistry community of term nitrogen oxide

According to Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, "nitrogen oxides" refers to NOx (NO+NO2). "Reactive odd nitrogen" refers to NOy, which is NOx + all the oxidation products of NOx. N2O is considered its own class (Nitrous oxide). In discussions with a couple of friends who have PhDs in atmospheric chemistry, we agreed that we would assume that someone talking about "nitrogen oxide" would be referring to NOx, even if one could technically make the argument that a nitrogen oxide is any nitrogen-oxygen compound.

Additionally, the U.S. Clean Air Act specifically states: "(v) NOx.—The term ‘‘NOx’’ means oxides of nitrogen."

Not being a wikipedia regular, I hesitate to make drastic changes to the page myself, but I wanted this on the record for a more frequent wiki editor to consider adding "common scientific usage" or the like to the page. 2marcus (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other NxOy compounds?

Should Nitrosylazide and Nitrous oxide be added to the page?Naraht (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than just disabmig

This article needs to be more than just a disambig page. A reader coming here to find out more about some nitrogen oxide or other may be surprised to find there are so many and have no idea which of them is the one they want to learn more about. A short discussion of their comparative properties, uses and any common names or other distinguishing characteristics would be very helpful in recognising the context which brought the reader here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. But with the common source being internal combustion engines producing a mixture of most of them, it is reasonable to have an article on them together. Well, the common term for car exhaust is NOx, so maybe an article more specific to engine exhaust would be useful. Otherwise, why isn't the article title plural, since it refers to all of them? Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed (definition) of "binary compound"

The article currently states: "Nitrogen oxide may refer to a binary compound of oxygen and nitrogen....". However I cannot see it explained what "binary compound" actually means. "Binary compound" links to the binary phase [phase] page which is also confusing or maybe plain wrong. (I will explain with a note on that page's talk section too). I did some chemistry, but not as a major, so someone else could better fix this. I suspect the word PHASE in chemistry refers to phases such as solid, liquid, and gas. Nitrogen oxide exists in different ways e.g. NO₂, NO, N₂O etc. and I wonder if that is what the original sentence was suggesting? A similar concept to polymorphism, but i can't find the correct term at the moment! DrWhyisitso (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added 'binary compounds' to binary compound (which redirects to binary phase). It just means the molecule is made up of 2 types of atoms - in this case nitrogen and oxygen. Stepho talk 12:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"E918" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect E918 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#E918 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]