Talk:Chlorine trifluoride

NFPA 704
*fire diamond*
NFPA 704; fire diamond
	4 3

Chemicals Low‑importance

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

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does this exist?[edit]

Why does this exist?

    Its synthesis and use is fairly uncommon given its horrific combination of properties. However, it is still used as an
    cleaner in the semiconductor industry, and is a very effective fluorinating agent in the synthesis of various other (usually dangerous) 
    chemicals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.149.143 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

My english is too bad to edit the article, but I would to signal that there are many errors. My opinion is that the article should be deleted.
Errors include:

Melting point and boiling point.
Method and date of first syntesis.
Method of current syntesis.
Heat of formation and average Cl-F bond energy.
Chlorine trifluoride is a very very strong oxiding, not bland.

Svante 02:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with some of these, but I don't have any information on the syntheses. I will come back to this page as soon as I have checked this out. Physchim62 22:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page really exist? Either we expand and make pages on all the interhalogens or we make it a rule that they stay on that page. ThomasWinwood 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1912 Synthesis Reference[edit]

The best I can find so far is [1], which may just be taken from here for all we know.--Nick Y. 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an apparently contradictory reference Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie, Volume 190, Issue 1 , Pages 270 - 276, DOI:10.1002/zaac.19301900127, [2]. The title translates as "about a new chlorine Flouride-ClF3". I have seen this referenced elsewhere on the web as being the invention.--Nick Y. 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First synthesis[edit]

Quoted from Banks, A. A.; Rudge, A. J. “Liquid density of chlorine trifluoride” Journal of the Chemical Society (1950), 191-3 (these were collaborators with Emelius, the master of UK fluorine chem. at the time). The first sentence of their paper: “The preparation of chlorine trifluoride was first described by Ruff and Krug (Z. anorg. Chem., 1930, 190, 270) , since when only nine communications (Schmitz and Schumacher, Z. Naturforsch., 1947, 2a, 362, 363; Domange and Neudorffer, Compt. rend., 1948, 226, 920; Schäfer and Wicke, Z. Elektrochem., 1948, 52, 205; Booth and Pinkston, Chem. Reviews, 1947, 41, 421; B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 1595; C.I.O.S. Report So. XXII-17) dealing with this compound have appeared in the literature.” So it looks like it was Ruff and Krug.--Smokefoot 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should remove the claim. It could be later reintroduced with appropriate references.

"It was first prepared in 1912 by the electrolysis of molten NaCl/HF, but is now generally made by reacting fluorine gas with 3% aqueous sodium hypochlorite solution:

4F₂ + 2NaOCl → 2ClF₃ + 2NaF + O₂"

--128.115.27.10 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need to be deleted, rewritten would be a more appropriate action. I have in the reversion also reverted the addition of a reference to a commercial safety spec, I prefer non-commercial sites for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding a non-commercial document on this one. There is only one supplier in the entire USA. BTW the air products MSDS is MSDS Number 300000000028 and can be found at [3]. --Nick Y. 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had access to some journals and none of them states a synthesis by electrolysis. So It should go!--Stone 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I do not understand why Dirk Beetstra reverted the deletion of this patently false information calling it vandalism? The other part of his complaint seemed to be that the safety information and related MSDS came from the manufacturer. My understanding is that all MSDS's are created by manufacturers or resellers not by governmental bodies or non-profit organizations. I believe that it is federal law that they provide this information. Most safety information is not disseminated as peer reviewed papers and most of the research is done by liable parties. I understand that there are some questions that could be raised about this system. It is my understanding that most documents that address safety that are not company documents tend to be secondary or tertiary sources all deriving from the MSDS primarily as the original source, at least in part. Some times there are government documents that are the original source of some of what is contained in the MSDS. I do not think that MSDS's or manufacturer notes on safety are unreliable to the point of being an unworthy source. I find it even harder to understand how as the only manufacturer of an obscure and extremely dangerous chemical they would benefit by spamming wikipedia with the hazards of their product.--Nick Y. 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will also go into the table!--Stone 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ox" is missing. It is an extremely strong oxidizer as well as being water reactive.--Nick Y. 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bond angle[edit]

Bond angle 120° this looks strange for me and also strange compared with the drawing.--Stone 12:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 120° is approximately the middle F-Cl-Lone pair angle. The F-Cl-F angle is approximately 90°. I understand the reason for this angle being teh primary angle associated with trigonal bipyramidal but in this particular case it is fairly useless, unimportant and confusing. Btw I do not understand why we are letting the false information sit on this page for so long after we have debunked it. Why not delete it and tehn rebuild. It's just a sentence after all.--Nick Y. 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing unit[edit]

The article says, "Pure ClF3 is stable to 180° in glass vessels (...)". 180° using which unit?

Gaesadair (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years later, but Celsius, obviously. It can't be Kelvin because that doesn't use degrees, and it can't be Fahrenheit because no sane person working in science would use that. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction with radioactive materials[edit]

A friend of mine is curious (as am I, to be honest), are there any 'interesting' reactions to common or weapons-grade radioactive materials? --–Xoid 03:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reacts as would be expected by any strong fluoridating agent, I'd think. Several common and weapons-grade radioactive materials are free metals, and it would likely burn those the same way it burns any other free metal. It's worth noting that uranium hexafluoride is a common method of storing uranium, whether prior to or subsequent to enrichment, and ClF3 would have NO reaction to this fully-fluoridated compound; considering the nature of this stuff, something it DOESN'T burn could be considered more interesting than something it does. 75.95.99.15 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard reduction potential?[edit]

On the Fluorine page, it stated that Chlorine Trifluoride: 'which as a freely reacting oxidant gives the strongest oxidants' Is there a standard reduction potential for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.31.129 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"only the most powerful fire-extinguishing agents can extinguish a ClF3 fire"[edit]

I'm in no doubt that ordinary fire-fighting methods are near-useless. I tagged this sentence as dubious because it's unclear if any fire-extinguishing agent will work on a chlorine trifluoride fire. Two legs of the fire triangle are pretty much untouchable in a ClF₃ fire; the stuff is its own oxidizer and so it doesn't need air (making atmosphere-displacement agents useless), and it oxidizes things you wouldn't normally consider fuel (which thus normally make good candidates for fire suppression, such as foams and water). The only thing you can try to control is heat, by supercooling the reactants until they no longer react. I don't know how cold it'd have to get, but I'd bet a nickel on a tanker truck of LN2 not being enough.

Discuss.Liko81 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you rolled it back after I fixed it. Most MSDS's discussing this kind of fire talk about making sure that the rest of the world doesn't burn down. In other words, you let the fire burn itself out, but don't allow it to cause secondary fires. This is a fairly common scenario for a lot of fuel gas fires, you want them to burn, as fugitive gases are much more dangerous than a big flame. A water spray around the edges would keep the amount of fugitive ClF3 to a minimum outside a given radius.JSR (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I have just rolled back all the recent edits from user:1YlGC6dsynvm. There are just too many dubious edits in there and I do not have the time or energy to go through them with a fine-tooth comb to pick out what is good and what is bad. Best wishes to anyone wanting to take that task on. Spinning Spark 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what this editor is obsessing about either. A mix of useless, marginal, and inappropriate revisions. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Materials compatibility, Teflon in particular[edit]

The current version says ClF3 reacts with Teflon®.

I'd BBIU but it's not clear what to put in its place. Air Products says to use Teflon only with gaseous ClF3, and John Clark's book "Ignition!" says there's mechanical erosion, so they're not truly compatible.

It is of course chemically impossible for a fluorinating agent to fluorinate something that's already completely fluorinated, but it's conceivable that it breaks the carbon-carbon bonds, but in that case there should be a citation. 50.46.146.86 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS also. I've heard that you basically use the same equipment as for fluorine gas to handle it. If you Google a source and then rewrite the para will work fine. If we want to emphasize its reactivity and hazards, there are some good chemical handling texts that talk about the agent.TCO (talk)

What does molecular fluorine have to do with anything? Difluorine is a different chemical, with a higher bond enthalpy. It's like comparing milk and cheese when it comes to making pizza, why would milk come into it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to hidden comment[edit]

Found this hidden text in the article: "Doesn't ClF₃ react with water to produce OF₂ + HF + HCl?"

Not in the usual case of water being in excess. The primary reactions would be these:

4ClF₃ + 6H₂O -> 2Cl₂ + 12HF + 3O₂

ClF₃ + 2H₂O -> HCl + 3HF + O₂

You might get some of the chlorine oxyacids (HClO_x) as well if there were enough water to absorb the heat without boiling. H₂O₂ would probably show up in small amounts as well. It's a combustion reaction, so it'll inevitably produce a mixture of products.

OF₂ could only be produced if ClF₃ were in excess, since excess water hydrolyses it to O₂ + 2HF. I'm not sure if you'd get much of it even then. Magic9mushroom (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Storage in quartz[edit]

I have reverted this edit which removed the claim that ClF3 is stable below 180 C in quartz vessels. I am seeing a lot of sources describing ClF3 being introduced into quartz chambers in order either to etch a silicon substrate or else to clean silicon carbide from the walls of the chamber with little or no damage to the quartz [4][5][6]. In the Journal of the Chemical Society I found this snippet In filling the cell with chlorine trifluoride a sufficient quantity was distilled in vacuum from a quartz storage vessel which explicitly confirms storage in quartz. In Regulatory Chemicals Handbook it states ClF3 attacks quartz if traces of moisture are present, which implies that that pure quartz with no other materials present will not be attacked. SpinningSpark 09:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research Gate isn't an Author[edit]

JimW Your reference is sort of screwed up. You may wish to correct it.JSR (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chlorine trifluoride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220454/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5849092.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5849092.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220008/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6034016-fulltext.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6034016-fulltext.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.semiconductor.net/article/209105-In_Situ_Cleaning_of_CVD_Chambers.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/8479ed55-2170-4651-a3d4-223b2957a9f3/0/safetygram39.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718031608/http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chlorine trifluoride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that this thing does not react with?[edit]

As dangerous as this stuff is, does this compound react with N2? Or noble gases? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gases except xenon.And some metal fluorides. 小小小硝酸 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction with N2 and O2 is thermodynamically unfavourable. That's why it has flammability 0 (cannot burn in air). ClF3 also won't react with anything that's already fluorinated up to maximum oxidation state (e.g. CF4, SF6, NaF, but not teflon because its empirical formula is CF2 and it can therefore accept more fluorine). Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read anecdotes that teflon doesn't seem to be damaged by stagnant ClF3, though a flow of ClF3 will erode teflon rapidly - this seems consistent with a slow depolymerization and insertion of fluoride ions in broken C-C bonds creating various linear perfluoroalkanes that are dense and oil-like, and explains the apparent erosion of the teflon. These are likely further broken down by ClF3 into simpler perfluoroalkanes, presumably eventually yielding CF4, but the bulk teflon is at least temporarily protected from further depolymerization by a layer of these slowly reacting perfluoroalkanes if they are not transported away. The ability of perfluoroalkanes to dissolve gases may also mean the reaction is slowed as it progresses by the formation of CF4 in solution (this could explain why the reaction doesn't seem to be terribly violent, even when the inert products are transported from the bulk teflon). InkTide (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Energy released during hydrolysis[edit]

Recently I came across a paper from the mid 1950's (which I lost the link to, unfortunately) where a company called Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation ran an experiment where they tried to determine the heat of reaction of ClF
₃ with excess water. And the result? ${\ce {\Delta H_{reaction}^{\ominus }}}=81.0\pm 0.4\,{\ce {kcal/mol}}.$

If my calculations are correct, this means the reaction of 1 kg of ClF
₃ with excess water releases about 3.66 megajoules of energy, or about 876.15 grams of TNT. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]