Talk:Struvite

message: RE: "*Fertiliser
It is estimated that there is only enough phosphorus from current resources to last about 30 years left. This is a problem as vast volumes of phosphorus are needed to produce fertiliser, as it is an essential plant macronutrient. Struvite is a possible alternative to traditional phosphorus fertiliser, the production of which uses this depleating phosphorus source. It is obtained from municipal waste and so is very cheap. It is a slow releasing form of phosphorus fertiliser, meaning that fewer applications are necessary. There is a problem with struvite as a fertiliser however, as it reduces the absorption of potassium into the crop. Current use of stuvite would have to be supplimented with increased amounts of potassium fertiliser, which could effectively just swap one problem (phosphorus) with another (potassium). One possible solution would involve creating a form of struvite with the ammonium group (NH3) being substituted with potassium (K): KMgPO4, instead of the current NH3MgPO4 form." 16:59, 5 May 2006 Tim hole 
Well-meaning entry, but not 'encyclopedic'. Phosphorus reserves info is unreferenced and no doubt refers to proven reserves, and doesn't belong in the struvite entry. The idea that struvite recycled from municipal waste is 'cheap' is contrary to the experience of many operators, many of whom add magnesium chloride, magnesium oxide/hydroxide, and/or sodium hydroxide to make struvite form. The statement that struvite as a fertilizer reduces potassium 'absorption' by plants is unreferenced, not obviously true, and very likely scientifically incorrect. The 'possible solution' of replacing K for NH4 is not crystallographically sound, and would in any case not result in struvite...note other flaws in chemical composition as written. PBarak 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It appears that there are 2 hydrogens in the formula that should not be there.  13 ed Merck Index also has it wrong, 2 hydrogens and one extra oxygen in one formula used for the atomic weight and % breakdown and then followed by the correct formula.  (NH4)MgPO4*6H2O is correct.   Is it British nomenclature to add in the waters of hydration?  H16 Mg N O10 P is the correct formula in that style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.202.129 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula and formula weight wrong 

message: I have removed the image and text mentioning a staghorn calculus.  Most calculi are not struvite, and there is no evidence that the image was of a struvite staghorn calculus. --Una Smith (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staghorn calculus 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+electrically+heated+cigarette+smoking+system&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.222.67 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And...? write the article then add link if appropriate. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links in the ''See also'' section are based on the following... 

message: In the Struvite kidney stones section, this statement is made, "special acidifying low magnesium diets may be used to dissolve sterile struvite stones."  Is this technique to be used only on STERILE stones?  If so, I would recommend stating that in the article.  A second question.  Is this treatment only to be used on cats?  That doesn't seem logical.  Why wouldn't it work on dogs and humans also?  Olan7allen (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struvite/ Struvite Kidney stones