Talk:Reagent

message: I decided that it would be a  to spilt the portion of this article that deals with reagents in chemical reactions (that is, "reagent" as a noun) into the reactant page.  I kept the description of reagent as a mark of purity (that is, "reagent" as an adjective) here.  I felt that it would be good to split the pages so that we don't confuse the two different definitions of "reagent."  Feel free to leave a comment here or on Talk:Reactant. MJSkia1 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagent/reactant split

message: I thought that ths article would deal with the word "reagent" used as an adjective to describe purity, so I deleted the "a." MJSkia1 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of the article 

message: I'm too lazy to log in but... I think this might be a chm stub. It's a little lacking, if not vague, considering it is a redirection from "reactantS". A merge with the "reactant" page might end both page's problems, I see that there was a split but it actually makes things confusing because reagent and reactant are not distinctly described. They seem to mean the same concept (they include parts of each other) but with different words. If not a merge then it can at least be cleaned up; if there is an insistence on having examples, a section could be made a section for examples or at least distintions between the "two definitions" of reagent. 65.8.200.152 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehh... 

message: Do reagents include catalysts, or does it have to be taking part in the reaction? I think this should be cleared up in the article, however, im not sure of the answer myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.236.103 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, catalysts are usually not called reagents. --Itub 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Catalysts usually are the reactants because they do not get consumed (become an agent) in the reaction but rather react. If a catalyst was a reagent (the primary substance that is consumed during the reaction), it wouldn't be called a catalyst.
Lets take a look at this in a "Mathematical" way (Use The Law Of Equal Proportionation
Reactant: The substance on the left side of the molecular equation
Reagent: The substance on the right side of the equation, or the substance which is tested on
Here is a catalytic reaction:
HHOO (Hydrogen Peroxide)+ OO (Peroxide with negative charge, found in livers)
Simpler formula =(H2O2 + O2)
(Oxygen needs 2 Hydrogens since oxygen)
Product = H2O --> O2  (Water and and Oxide molecule)
*You can try this at home if you have a piece of liver and pour Hydrogen Peroxide at home.
As you can see only Oxygen was taking place in the reaction. The reactant was Hydrogen Peroxide which is also the catalyst. If you use Manganese(IV) oxide only oxygen is the reactant, but this time a black liquid is produced that is mixed with water and oxygen which are the products.
*Note: I am not a credible source since I am in Grade 10, please ask a professional chemist or research it up yourself. And also note that most of the Wikipedians are not themselves credible but they source their information from external sites. Make sure your sourcing is from a doctor, professor, or one who's occupation specializes on your topic. If sourcing a site, try to find a .gov .org or any other site that have credible publishers. (This is why wikipedia has lots of sourcing =P, so vandalizers cannot edit at will)
--• Storkian • 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalysts? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Are buffers reagents? On the one hand, they seem to impede rather than bring about reactions, but on the other, impeding is itself a reaction (cf. deceleration being a kind of acceleration). JKeck (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffers? 

message: The article contains a sentence saying "In organic chemistry, reagents are compounds or mixtures, usually composed of inorganic or small organic molecules, that are used to affect a transformation on an organic substrate.". 
I think the word "affect" there should be "effect" instead.  Here "affect" means, 'to have an effect upon';  while the verb to "effect" (some [direct object] thing), would mean, to bring about a certain event -- [the direct object of the verb] -- that is, to cause that event (in this case, the "transformation") to occur. 
I could be wrong, but the evidence suggests that the intended meaning here is probably to cause the "transformation" mentioned to occur, rather than just to have some effect upon it.  
If the person (editor) who wrote this had really meant 'to have an effect upon' the "transformation", (that is, to influence the "transformation" in some way), then it just seems obvious that he/she would have also said something about what kind of effect the reagent was supposed to have, on the "transformation".  For example, speeding up a reaction is one way of "affecting" a given reaction;  but why would someone say "affect" (meaning, [to] 'have an effect upon' [some thing]), if their intended meaning were really something more specific, such as to 'speed up' that thing?  
On the other hand, it is well known that sometimes writers spell one of those verbs ("effect" vs. "affect") when they should spell the other, partly because [A] it is a one-letter TYPO; and partly because [B] there is no difference (or only a slight difference) in the pronunciation, so the distinction ("effect" vs. "affect") is often completely lost in spoken language. 
Any comments, before I edit this article?  (a one-letter change to the wiki markup).  Going once ... 
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  (spelling?) nit-pick: "effect" vs. "affect"  

message: Substituted at 04:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article relies on the IUPAC definition, but IUPAC uses reactant as the entry word and reagent as a reference to it. – Danmichaelo (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: i would say keep here.  "reagent" is widely used in biotech/biochemistry. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to reactant? 

message: What is the characteristic of reagent 41.190.3.242 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic science 

message: They are small molecules or biochemicals like siRNA or antibodies that are known to affect a given biomolecule has multiple possible meanings, and needs punctuating to clarify which is intended. The one that makes most sense to me is They are small molecules, or biochemicals like siRNA or antibodies, that are known to affect a given biomolecule, but I'm not a biochemist so I've not made the change. Can anyone confirm the meaning? Musiconeologist (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tool compounds: ambiguous sentence