Talk:Electron affinity (data page)

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the source which gives the second electron affinity of oxygen and the first electron affinity of nitrogen accurate?

I found that there are two (possible) errors with the data after comparing the source and the Wikipedia article page. One of them is that the second electron affinity of oxygen is shown to be positive in the source. However, it is negative in the article. And the first electron affinity of nitrogen has the same problem. So, I made a change to remove the data that are contradicting to the source. Until more sources are given to make the data more definite and proper, please do not undo the page. See the original Wikipedia Page and source below.

The source: https://bcs.whfreeman.com/WebPub/Chemistry/raynercanham6e/Appendices/Rayner-Canham%205e%20Appendix%205%20-%20Electron%20Affi%20nities%20of%20Selected%20Nonmetals.pdf The original Wikipedia article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Electron_affinity_(data_page)&oldid=950350493 --Shamrockwikiedit (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd EA of O in the article is right. The source (Rayner-Canham) is right. He uses the opposite ± notation than we do. The source shows O as –744 whereas he should show it as +744. Which we would show as –744. It's a common enough mix up for EA sign notation, which doesn't matter in this case, as his mistake works for us. The first EA of N in the article is right. The source (Bratsch, S.G.; Lagowski, J.J.) is right. Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

The information for gallium is wrong. It should be 28.9 not 42.5

The information for Silicon doesn't look right. Several sources online say the electron affinity should be 4.05 eV for Silicon. See, for instance, this document published by the silicon wafer manufacturer Virginia Semiconductor: http://www.virginiasemi.com/pdf/generalpropertiessi62002.pdf. The textbook "Semiconductor Device Fundamentals" by Robert F. Pierret lists the electron affinity of Silicon at 4.03 eV on page 478.

I totally agree with Si electron affinity. Should be 4.05 eV. Balinga's book has this value, Sze's book has this value also. Soathana (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallium appears to be 41 kJ/mol ... The electron affinity of Si was measured by photodetachment microscopy (an atomic physics technique) in 2010 and found to be 1.389 5210(7) eV, see [6] (Chaibi et al.). That settles the case. It would have been extremely suprising anyway to find an electron affinity greater than those of the halogens. Both tables - in eV and in kJ/mol - actually need to be revised and merged together. Having separate tables is nonsense when one deals with one and the same quantity. I shall do this merging, keeping one column in eV and another one in kJ/mol, so as to make everybody happy, ASAP. Good night Chrisanion (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The commenters' 4.05 eV values were not for the chemical electron affinity of Si but rather the surface electron affinity of an Si crystal as defined in solid state physics. Unfortunately these two concepts are both called "electron affinity" despite having completely different values. See the electron affinity article. I recall some talk on another talk page (I can't find it at the moment) that it might be also nice to tabulate the latter, however it's not clear that this is so useful since surface electron affinities depend on temperature, crystal face, etc. etc. and so only two significant figures are woth listing (just like work functions).

At the least it might be worth putting a note on the data page that the solid state electron affinities are not at all listed.

Thanks for volunteering to merge the tables! That was bugging me for a long time and the page will be much improved for your efforts. --Nanite (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Electron affinity (data page)/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.

Very useful, especially when one does not have a handbook of physical/chemical constants to hand. The only improvements I could suggest are:

a) the citations should be hypertext b) it should be expanded to cover more molecules (the reward for good work is a request for more of it)

HLHJ (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Krypton

Is the value for krypton wrong? It seems to be exactly the same as that of argon, and the page electron affinity provides a rounded value of 60, not 96. Could someone please find out which of these numbers is right? --Ammonium121 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in a bibliographic source

In the source:

Sheps, L.; Miller, E.M.; Lineberger, W.C. (2009), "Photoelectron spectroscopy of small IBr−(CO2)n(n=0–3) cluster anions", J. Chem. Phys., 131 (1): 064304, Bibcode:2009JChPh.131a4304G, doi:10.1063/1.3157185, hdl:20.500.11850/209930, PMID 19586102

The IDs do not correspond to that paper but to another. I'm going to assume that the reference is correct and the IDs are wrong, so I'm going to change them by PMID: 19691385, DOI: 10.1063/1.3200941, and Bibcode: 2009JChPh.131f4304S. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 13:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]