Talk:Nitrification

Nitrogen cycle figure

I believe the image is from the site of the book; Campbell and Reece: Biology. You'll need a accescode for the site; www.campbellbiology.com

Is this statement meant to dispute the basis for the USEPA employee authorship and public domain status of the graphic in the article? So far, I'm not buying it: image looks to be PD. -- Paleorthid 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I've checked my book, and the image is indeed in it. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourselve: Campbell & Reece, Biology. I have the seventh edition, and there the image appears on page 1197. And hey, I'm only trying to help.

The image appears on the EPA's website [1]. I don't see anything that suggests they lifted it anywhere else (or, if they did, they're doing so illicitly), so it seems PD to me. Could it be that Campbell and Reece have "borrowed" it? Cheers, --Plumbago 11:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the picture of the nitrogen cycle really belong here? I think an example of denitrification mechanism would be more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.103.70 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

An example of denitrification certainly doesn't belong here either. I will try make a more update picture of the N-cycle, because this one doesn't include the aquatic ecosystem where most of the N-cycling occurs. uuuǝıɹ 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources of oxygen

Are we sure that the oxygen atom in the NO2 -> NO3 step comes from water? The Nitrifying_bacteria pages lists otherwise. 216.59.231.35 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

it does indeed come from water, the page you are citing says the same (Ward, Arp& Klotz, Nitrification, 2010 pp 279, ASM Press) uuuǝıɹ 14:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riennn (talk • contribs)

Human nitrification

There's no mention of human nitrification in the article. For example combustion of fossil fuels produces NO2 as a biproduct. Smartse (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some reference links. 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

the noun "nitrification" is not use to describe combustion processes that lead to the creation of N-containing molecules. It is purely a microbial process. uuuǝıɹ 14:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Archaeal nitrification

hello wikipedia friends, in the article, its stated that "Currently, only one AOA, Nitrosopumilus maritimus, has been isolated and described". this is not current, see: N.viennensis http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/26/1013488108.short i'd edit the article myself but i'm not totally sure how.

cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.220.213 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

a lot of stuff has to be updated on these pages. Both Nitrification and Nitrifying bacteria articles need a complete overhaul. I'll see what I can do. uuuǝıɹ 14:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riennn (talk • contribs)

Chemical equations

I removed the CO₂ from the left-hand side of the top two chemical equations:[2] As it stood, these equations seemed to imply that the nitrification process involved carbon vanishing into nothingness, since there was carbon on the left side and not the right (and the number of oxygen atoms didn't match, either). If the intent was to represent that carbon dioxide is involved as a catalyst (is that the case?), there are better ways to state that. (I'm also not sure it makes sense to list the bacteria genera as if they were reactants in the equation, but I'll leave that alone unless someone else has a better idea as to how to include them.) If there's something I'm misinterpreting here and the CO₂ did belong there, please explain, but it really didn't make sense to me. --Smeazel (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

my best guess is that somebody was trying to imply that nitrifiers are autrotrophs (fix carbon)... so good you removed this. It has nothing to do with the actual reaction. uuuǝıɹ 14:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riennn (talk • contribs)

also, although this reaction # 2 NH₃ + 3 O₂ → 2 NO₂^- + 2 H₂O + 2 H⁺ (Nitrosomonas) is stoichiometrically correct, it does not happen IRL. it's a two step process. NH3+O2-->NH2OH+H2O-->NO2-+5H+ uuuǝıɹ 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Better linking

This article doesn't seem to be linked to:http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nitrifying_bacteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.98.156 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nitrification/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.

Needs cleanup, especially sectional structure. -- Paleorthid 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

nitrification saves/helps the world, related to: water, soil, food, forests, carbon (CO2) I think.

Hello. The statement of the german article of nitrification, "nitrogen (ammonia) goes to Nitrite, goes to Nitrate, which is nitrogen-containing mineral nutrient"; which I think is meant (the) organic minerals, did make me bring together animal´s manure (dung), (and now even also sewage sludge), and wood chips (or general mulch; and even compost, as the Zai method for example), as users of both of each other:
Nitrogen giving (providing) and nitrogen using, for composting. As humus process, I do interpret.
Trying to work, to figure it out, I do in my sandbox article and a part in the "Talk" page of Ruth Stout. But there, the most important works are deleted by an admin. And I added the link to the all before deleted history, for easier to find (all).
The Zai (disambiguation page: ´Zai, an off season farming technique to collect water and nutrients from compost´, technique is a proof for this, I think.
And Allan Savory ´greening the dessert´ proofs even ´without much´ mulch this method working this way.
Further proofs: https://nzarn.org.nz/2019/04/01/composting-barns/
https://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/barns-equipment/air-and-light-considerations-for-compost-bedded-pack-barns
I am not a scientist and I am not a writer. So my apology to perhaps offending the one or other, because of the way of my works, here at wikipedia.
Visionhelp (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ammonia to nitrite, nitrite to nitrate, which is: nitrogen-containing mineral nutrient

I figured it out to this wording, please: ammonia to nitrite and the nitrite to nitrate, which is a nitrogen-containing mineral nutrient, but an organic mineral, not an an-organic, but as I just can only assume, sorry.
Source of the (my to this) shortened wordings is from the german wikipedia article: "Ammoniak zu Nitrit", "zu Nitrat", "So entsteht für Pflanzen stickstoffhaltiger Mineralnährstoff"; (translation: "Ammonia to nitrite", "to nitrate", "This creates nitrogen-containing mineral nutrient for plants".
(So just dung and organic materials bringing together does it.)
If this view is anything wrong, please, clarify. Thanks.
--Visionhelp (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)