Talk:Ammonium phosphate

message: According to my figures, the molecular mass of monammonium phosphate is 115 kg/kmol and the atomic weight of phosphorus is 31 kg/kmol.  Accordingly, the percentage phosphorus is 100 x 31 / 115 = 26.9% by weight.
Atomic masses in kg/kmol used (rounded):
    Nitrogen:   14
    Hydrogen:    1
    Phosphorus: 31
    Oxygen:     16
Molecular mass of monammonium phosphate (NH4.H2PO4) = 14 + 4 + 2 + 31 + (4 x 16) = 115
Its elementry chemistry !
:Dear 213.122.16.213. In fact, the analysis of MAP and DAP of common commerce as fertilizer materials is as was previously stated...including some amount of water and other agents to allow it to hold granular form...rather than the weights for the pure, analytical form that you calculated. It would appear that you did not consult the reference attached to those numbers, nor produce another. I will revert, adding words in that sentence indicating that the numbers pertain to fertilizer analysis, though it would appear certainly so from the reference. PBarak 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear PBarak.  Point taken. Regret I was unable to consult your reference but other web sites show different figures to both yours and mine. I would also comment that the use of N-P-K style presentation for :elemental content, rather that the oxides, could be a bit confusing to the uninitiated (and I include myself). I trust no-one is offended here.
As yet, unregistered user. 03:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these fertilizer materials have a range of values, albeit a fairly narrow range, since they are not pure, analytical reagents; and I chose to use the representative values of the textbook cited for the sake of simplicity. Indeed, the elemental and the oxide systems are likely to be strange, but both are well-established by custom and commerce. And, of course, no one is offended. PBarak 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I take your point but at the risk of becoming a pain, what may be well-established by custom and commerce may not be understood by us ordinary folk who are trying to find out what it all means. Since you mention the elemental content by percentages anyway, I don't quite understand the need to state values which look like N-P-K values when they are not (legally). If this were a trade document, I would have no argument with the grounds you state. As an entry in a public-access encyclopaedia, however, I have reservations. Perhaps, you might reconsider. 213.122.21.18 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The oxide system of stating chemical analysis is a historic system used by analytical chemists of yesteryear, which has been retained almost exclusively in the fertilizer industry (sort of like feet and inches in the printing and lumber industries). I will consider writing a subsection within the 'Fertilizer' wikipedia article regarding the oxide reporting system for fertilizers, so that an internal link can be made for clarification, unless I can find an article already in wikipedia. PBarak 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But you seem to be ignoring the oxide system which is legally required on all fertilizer labels but use a presentation which looks like the legal reporting system. The legislation was introduced to prevent such confusion in the minds of customers. The statement "18-20-0 (elemental), i.e., 18% N and 20% P by weight" is not truth under the legislation but your article purports it to be so. My reservations remain.81.131.116.25 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise that you edit the paragraph, or delete it, to suit yourself. I have reverted my edits to this article to the previous version. PBarak 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As you know, I had conceeded the point regarding the percentages given by your reference; and I thank you for putting me straight on that point. My concerns were only about what I considered to be the misuse of the NPK labelling system. 213.122.82.53 03:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: % Phosphorus

message: I propose that this article contain only information relevant to ammonium phosphate: (NH4)3PO4. Ammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate, and diammonium phosphate are all distinct chemicals with their own characteristics and properties. Discussion of similarities and differences between various phosphates should be the content of either a page on phosphates or, in this case, a page on ammonium phosphates as a class of chemicals. dil 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Segregation of Compounds

message: This has been flagged for copyright violation by User:Shoy linked to 'Crystallizing: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases'. Using the link provided by User:Shoy, I can't find any overlap using the Google limited preview so maybe he can point it out. Please note that the Book Overview says "The resulting entries are used under license or with permission, used under fair use conditions, used in agreement with the original authors, or are in the public domain." The original may therefore be from Wikipedia and the book may have swept it up like most of the rest of the previewed material. I've watched this article develop over some yrs, accumulated out of many bits, and find it hard to believe that the wikipedia article is not the source material if indeed there is a word-for-word version elsewhere. 
(The same situation existed recently for the Hydroponics article with suspected copyright violations and _two_ other word-for-word versions were to be found elsewhere. They however were copies of the wikipedia material, without attribution.) PBarak (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Always good to keep an eye out for this issue. Fortunately, I'm familiar with Icon Publishing Group. This particular publishing company openly (and legally) copies Wikipedia. Their entry on Ammonium phosphate acknowledges Wikipedia as its source. See , at page 161. The [WP] at the end of the entry is their Wikipedia credit, as verified in the preface of the book. I'm restoring that text. Other text has been split, so I'm unsure if other text was removed as a copyright infringement of this source, too. If so, it can safely be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation (?)

message: The article sodium bicarbonate says ammonium phosphate is used in type ABC fire extinguishers, but there's nothiong about that use here. RJFJR (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that use is mentioned in one of the daughter articles, Ammonium dihydrogen phosphate
PBarak (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC fireextinguishers

message: The article states that triammonium phosphate "is obtained as a crystalline powder upon mixing concentrated solutions of ammonia and phosphoric acid, or on the addition of excess of ammonia to the acid phosphate (NH4)2(HPO4)." How can that be? According to my CRC Handbook, the pKa for ammonium ion is 9.25 while that of HPO4(2-) is 12.67, so ammonium is a stronger acid than HPO4(2-).  Or, alternatively, PO4(3-) is a stronger base than NH3.  Wouldn't that mean you could produce (NH4)2HPO4 (DAP) but that's as far as the reaction would go?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.155.162 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product of Reaction of Ammonia with Phosphoric Acid 

message: It's also used in fire extingushers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.18.253 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire Exinguishers