Talk:Oxalic acid

Content in Food

this chart is from the USDA, 1984. Several values are inconsistent with current research, notably those that are off by factor of 10 in the publication itself. For example, carrots are listed as containing .5g/100g oxalic acid, which is 500mg/100g. More recent studies, such as the one cited for beetroot (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf048128d) report that raw carrots contain 50mg/100g, which would translate to 0.05g/100g. There are several significant differences like this that call for a more up to date and comprehensive authority for resolve. Everydaycurious (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Toxicity and safety

quote from the article: "In humans, oxalic acid has an oral LDLo (lowest published lethal dose) of 600 mg/kg (human).[11] The main toxicity of oxalic acid is due to the precipitation of calcium oxalate in the kidneys when urine becomes supersaturated with respect to this salt. Oxalic acid is also a metabolism product of the degradation of ethylene glycol if accidentally ingested and, as such, directly represents a danger for the kidneys in case of glycol poisoning, which can largely be eliminated through the use of propylene glycol based antifreeze products instead for automotive engine cooling."

• what exactly is that last sentence saying about antifreeze used in automotive engine cooling? I think there might be some missing words or information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraudhi (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Radiocarbon Dating

Perhaps mention of Oxalic acid's use in radiocarbon dating?

"The principal modern radiocarbon standard is N.I.S.T (National Institute of Standards and Technology; Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) Oxalic Acid I (C2H2O4). Oxalic acid I is N.I.S.T designation SRM 4990 B and is termed HOx1. This is the International Radiocarbon Dating Standard. Ninety-five percent of the activity of Oxalic Acid from the year 1950 is equal to the measured activity of the absolute radiocarbon standard which is 1890 wood. 1890 wood was chosen as the radiocarbon standard because it was growing prior to the fossil fuel effects of the industrial revolution. The activity of 1890 wood is corrected for radioactive decay to 1950. Thus 1950, is year 0 BP by convention in radiocarbon dating and is deemed to be the 'present'. 1950 was chosen for no particular reason other than to honour the publication of the first radiocarbon dates calculated in December 1949 (Taylor, 1987:97)." http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

and

"A 14C reference material or standard was chosen to represent as closely as possible the 14C content of carbon in naturally growing plants. The 14C content of the standard material itself does not need to be, in fact is not, equal to the standard 14C content. The definition of the standard 14C activity is based on 95% of the specific activity of the original NBS oxalic acid (Ox1) in the year AD 1950 (KarlZn et al. 1966), as will be discussed in more detail later." http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v41n3_mook_vdplicht_227.html

Cleanup

I fail to see sny carbon int the molecule diagram only ho, o, o, oh wtf is the carbon?? can this be fixed????!?!?!!!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.21.225 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist, but it seems to be sort of standard in these diagrams of organic compounds that the carbon isn't labeled; they're at the junctions in the diagram. There are two carbons in the middle, connected to each other by a single bond. Each has an OH connected to it by a single bond, and an O connected to it by a double bond. If that isn't clear, look at the stick and ball diagram. The carbons are grey. 71.163.32.187 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I came to this talk page seeking an answer to the same question. Having read the above and investigated further, it seems that the answer is supplied here – not only the C but also the H of organic compounds (and maybe even the N and O) can for the most part be assumed without being explicitly indicated, as they can be identified by their different valencies. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Foods that contain significant quantities of oxalic acid include cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, rhubarb, beans, and beets, among 'many others'.

In addition to its natural ...

• If there are many others, they need to be added, hence 'clean' template. User:fabartus

• • I removed the phrase, and many others because the list begins with includes (stating that the list is not complete). I then removed the clean tag from this page. RJFJR 17:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

That ought to stick. You can find sugar in everything, but it's hard to find in Coffee.

I can think of four relevant kinds of list: short, long, exhaustive, and complete. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Food high in oxalic acid

I found this page [1] and I merged the parsley and spanish into this page based on [2] but I coundn't confirm tea nor that cooking increases oxalic acid.  --  W  P Talk 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oxalic acid has a strong sour taste. so it is safe to assume that foods with NO sour taste whatsoever do NOT contain significant amount of it. I also found parsley in this article's list of "food items with high oxalic acid content" mentioned, which I belive is wrong. Sorrel, on the other hand, the most known high oxalic-acid containing plant is missing from this list, so the whole section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalic_acid#Content_in_food_items) seems unaccountable/unreliable.94.64.31.195 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

On this issue, I think the section on food containing oxalic acid should refer to food containing oxalate as a cation in general. From a health point of view, I guess (please correct me if I am wrong) that the poisonous effect of Oxalate is consistent whether in the form of Oxalic acid (associated with a hydronium anion), or any other anion, unless there is a particular anion which is commonly found which binds so closely with Oxalate for it to have no biological effect. This is really an argument for merging Calcium Oxalate, Oxalic acid into an article on Oxalate in general for clarity. I think health professionals, and the USDA for that matter, should be talking in terms of Oxalate, not Oxalic Acid. Nick Hill (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article states that "Members of the spinach family, including brassica", but the spinach family and brassicas are in separate families.MAH! (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Occurrence in nature

I thought Oxalic acid occurs in every plant, not just "many". Should this be changed to "all"? Granted, the concentration varies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UMinventor (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that according to Vitamin_C_megadosage "oxalic acid is produced in the metabolism of vitamin C". That article even links to this one, yet this article does not mention Vitamin C at all. (I don't know if the Vitamin C article is correct on this subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.63.47 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Melting point/Boiling point

There is some discrepency between sources on these values. It appears that oxalic acid decomposes at 191 °C, and this is sometimes listed as a melting point: however other sopurces list a lower temperature as a sublimation point. A full review would be welcome, I will do one if I get a chance. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tests

Some tests for oxalic acid can misidentify ascorbate as oxalic acid.

- What tests...? mastodon 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Titration with potassium permanganate will confuse ascorbate and oxalic acid, as will most test based on reducing power: the solution is to run a second test for strong reductants using, for example, iodine. Oxalic acid is only a weak reductant, and it needs an oxidant as strong as permanganate to react. Physchim62 (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll include this in the article mastodon 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

pK_a Values in Chembox

The values given as I write this do not specify a temperature. I am replacing them with 25°C values from 44th ed. of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and that jibe with values given in 10th ed. of Lange's Handbook of Chemistry. I did find pK values that match what was there (1.27 and 4.27) in Merck Index, but it did not give temperature either. Karlhahn 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The values presented in the 95th ed. of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and physics are 1.25 and 3.81 respectively. page 5-94 PubChem has values of 1.46 and 4.40 Kscrudders (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

LD50

Under "hazards" the LD50 is given as 7.5g/Kg but under safety it's 378mg/Kg. These are VERY different - which is right?

.378 g/kg or 7.5 g/kg? That might be a raynj given from animal studies where the Cat and the Rabbit differ, and if so, then that's what should be written. Brewhaha@edmc.net 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it may be worthwhile to include the data from this study showing a much lower LDlo than reported in this article: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(89)92967-X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.214.143 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know it's dangerous

I eat sorrel any chance I get - I like its sour taste.

I guess that oxalic acid is as toxic as anything else - if you'll eat too much, you'll not feel good :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.245.187.51 (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The main toxicity of oxalic acid arises from the precipitation of calcium oxalate in the kidneys where it forms kidneys stones and can block the kidneys themselves at high dose. As glycol is oxidized in oxalic acid, it gives the same toxicity problems. A diet too rich in oxalic acid (sorrel, rhubarb, spinach, tomato's, ...) is not good for persons already suffering from the gout disease (acute inflammatory arthritis). Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

is it a strong or weak acid???

I have tried to add some oxalic acid and some acetic acid into copper(II)carbonate respectively, in order to test their strength. It was quite disappointing to find that oxalic acid react even slower than acetic acid......Is it really true that oxalic acid is "about 10,000 times stronger than acetic acid."? I am frustated with that.Superdvd 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

pH and reaction rates are only related. Copper oxalate is less soluble, so it has to precipitate, too. A better question is whether Oxalate can precipitate Copper(II) out of the Acetate, and Oxalate should be the major product with sufficient time and concentration. I applaud the orijinal research in this case, because it's not part of the article, which should contain more about real world implications. It is a weak acid compared to inorganics. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sentence

"For this reason, a second test for strong reductants using, for example, iodine."

Makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain? Or is it a gramatical error? 82.40.75.55 22:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit to sign)

The Ionic States of it

I believe that this article could have included the factors that affect ionisation of oxalic acid.Also oxalic acid yields 2 protons while the other dicarboxylic acids don't yield two protons.Hence the factors for oxalic acid to yield both the protons could have been explained along with K_a values ..

The chem-data box gives the first and second pK_a values, which tell you all you need to know about its diprotic behavior at 25°C. As for other dicarboxylic acids, they too have two pK_a values, and thus, some fraction of each of them will yield two protons. See succinic acid as an example. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing the melting point.

This article doesn't seem to mention the melting point or boiling point of Oxalic acid. Does anyone happen to know what they are? Larrythefunkyferret 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Use in steel dishwasher

I used to put a tablespoon or so of oxalic acid in my dishwasher to remove hard water stains from my dishes. At that time I had a dishwasher with a plastic interior. I now have one with a stainless steel interior; can anyone tell me if that is problematic? I don't want to damage my new dishwasher! Thanks! 70.146.77.67 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's easy to experiment and find out. One way to do this would be to pour the liquid into a steel utensil and let it sit there for a while. Observe carefully to see if there is any damage to the utensil. If there is no damage, repeat the experiment for a much longer duration. If there is no damage still, you can also try with hotter oxalic acid if you like. --IO Device (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More foods

Kiwifruit and taro should be added to the list of plants containing oxalic acid. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a cite for this ranking of oxalic acid contents in foods? -Krasnoludek (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This list of food items seems to be completely out of thin air. sorrel is missing, while some other items on the list are probably not significant, so should not be listed. This list must have been taken from a housewifes magazine Sunday's issue. 94.64.31.195 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Oxalate and Oxalic acid

I propose that the articles Oxalate and Oxalic acid be merged. The articles were started independently within three months of one another, wiki-link to one another, and address the same topic but with somewhat different emphasis. It doesn't make sense to me to divide the content this way. Opinions? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I value having separate articles for acids and their conjugate base anions. I find that when such articles are merged, the anion gets neglected over time and things like the structural diagrams of the anion disappear. It would be a shame for this to happen to oxalate.

There are many other articles with the same pattern Chloride and Hydrochloric acid, Acetate and Acetic acid, Acrylate and Acrylic acid, Citrate and Citric acid, Formate and Formic acid, and so on.

Importantly, the name of the anion, such as oxalate, also refers to esters (Diphenyl oxalate) and salts (e.g. Disodium oxalate) - a separate article for Oxalate makes it easier to find such information than scrolling down through Oxalic acid.

If the merger goes ahead, it should be done sensibly and not lead to loss of information.

Ben (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not see what advantage there would be in the merge. While oxalic acid is related to oxalates, they are distinct substances (the acid can hardly be called an "oxalate of hydrogen") with distinct names and distinct formulas, and either occurs in significant contexts without the other. Moreover, most of the information in the two articles is either about the acid or about the anion; there is very little duplication. The same can be said about hydrogenoxalate, oxalic anhydride, etc.. If anything I would favor a split into "oxalate (anion)" and "oxalate (ester)", except that at the moment there is very little material about oxalate esters in general, and a split would be somewhat inconvenient for readers who look up "oxalate". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How bizarre. The article Oxalate isn't about "oxalates," it's an article about "oxalate," deprotonated oxalic acid, that includes links to articles on oxalates in its See also appendix. Oxalic acid and oxalate are not "distinct substances"; they are related as conjugate acid to conjugate base. One article may be "somewhat inconvenient" for a user seeking information specific to oxalate and not to oxalic acid to scroll down a page to find it, but two articles is a barrier to learning about the chemical if you're not already a chemist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Oxalate" is indeed also the name of a family of compounds which contain the oxalate anion. While the family should perhaps be called "oxalates", the point is moot because Wikipedia rules say that article names must be in the singular even when the article is about a family (e.g. "vegetable" not "vegetables"). Someone (not me!) could argue for a split into "oxalate anion" and "oxalate salt", but, apart from readers inconvenience, the second article would have little information besides the definition "an oxalate is a salt that contains the oxalate anion" and a list of links to specific salts.
Oxalic acid is a covalent solid; there is no trace of the oxalate anion in it. Potassium oxalate is an ionic solid; it contains oxalate anions but no protons, hence not a trace of oxalic acid. If those are not "distinct substances" then I don't know what could be.
More generally while an anion like chloride can be viewed as "deprotonated hydrogen chloride", that is a rather indirect way of defining the thing. The anion contains no hydrogen, why bring hydrogen into the topic? It is like defining "box" as "a cart without wheels". That definition is also hardly unique: why not "de-iodated iodine chloride", or "de-methylated methyl chloride"?
A better definition of "chloride" is just "chlorine plus one electron", but even so there is very little that is shared between chloride and chlorine (or either substance and HCl). It is true that one can be obtained from the other, but if that was an argument then "iron chloride" should be merged into "iron" (or into "chorine?) and "carbon dioxide" and "methane" should be merged into "carbon".
Another argument against merging anions with their H-acids is that sometimes the acid is elusive while the salt is stable: merging carbonate into carbonic acid, for example, would be quite weird.
Anyway, these philosophical considerations are largely subjective and we could argue them forever. What is more important is whether the readers would be better served by one article, or by two (or more). Well, I still don't see what readers would gain from a merge. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll never do this merge, too much precedent for separate articles acids and conjugate bases and elements and their redox partners. So forget it. Rather, let's do what Ben, Jorge and I do - add content!--Smokefoot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss changing policy within the Wikipedia Chemistry project, I recommend that you communicate with the project page. The pattern is so widespread that your new suggestions on changing this approach require broad discussion. We're talking about a lot of articles! As mentioned at the Talk:Oxalic acid, WE-Chem has "much precedent for separate articles acids and conjugate bases and elements and their redox partners" My guess is that there are perhaps a hundred or so similar pairs of articles. In fact we even distinguish aqueous acids and the hydrogen halides. Similarly, we distinguish isomers often as well. So please communicate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry if you have suggestions for changing widely employed structure for the chem articles. The group would certainly enjoy benefitting from your insights on new ways of communicating chemical concepts. I am going to revert your reversion of my fairly extensive edit on oxalate. You are welcome to contribute technical content as well, of course, but you shouldn't revert my explanation of the ionization of oxalic acid - maybe you were feeling sore. Your merger suggestion has been discussed (and dispensed with) years ago when these pages were originally organized. Again, you are certainly encouraged to talk to a broader audience, if you're up to it.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your 440 characters were redacted when I restored the merge tags that you deleted. By all means replace them. If there is a policy in place that specifies this topical organization, please cite the policy. I found no such policy described, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place. Of course, I also found no record that such a "merger suggestion has been discussed (and dispensed with) years ago when these pages were originally organized," so maybe you could point me there, too. Yappy2bhere (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the merger, per ample precedent. It is disappointing that you removed content and that you have not looked around as recommended by Jorge Stolfi: chlorine vs chloride vs hydrogen chloride, acetic acid vs acetate, phosphate vs phosphoric acid. Etc. We will revise our MOS to prevent similar issues in the future.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere's suggestion includes many other articles is not limited in scope to this article, and WT:CHEM/WT:CHEMISTRY are more relevant forums for this sort of discussion. That aside, it is quite clear that the consensus here is against a merger. The various reasons mentioned, such as long-standing practice, the relative importance of this anion (vs. some obscure ones) are perfectly reasonable. The edit summary for this edit was inappropriate as well. In conclusion, the topic has been discussed, there is no consensus for merger, the tags should come off. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Rifleman 82 and add a philosophical note: we could merge all carbide stubs (or alike) into one article, or we can keep them separately, together with carbide article, and hope they will all develop (and some do). Same here, oxalate and oxalic acid have different content; they can be merged, but I see no gain in merging (no duplicate content) - the efforts spent on merging could better be directed to improving the individual articles. Materialscientist (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I created most of these a few years ago; obviously my opinion is that it's worthwhile to have a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, "uniform organization" should be a very low priority goal at best — not just in chemistry but in the whole Wikipedia. The only advantage I see in that goal is that it may be of some help to readers and editors who are looking for a specific article. However, given automatic redirects, wikilinks, and the search engine, that advantage is actually quite small. So I would vote for a very flexible policy:

• Splitting the acid and the anion as two articles is always acceptable, and is desirable once there is enough material on both topics.
• Merging acid and anion articles that are already separate is desirable only if it is clear that one of them will never grow beyond stub size.

In either case, "desirable" means "if someone does it, great; but it is not a priority task." All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oxalic acid causes erosion of stainless steel

I accidentally spilled oxalic acid crystals on a stainless steel sink. I rinsed the sink and wiped the surface dry and left it about three days. The surface was quite badly pitted especially where it had been previously scratched. It occurred to me that as fiberglass boats and associated wood work and stainless steel are often cleaned with dilute oxalic acid to remove rust stains residual oxalic could remain in stainless steel rigging cables thus speeding up the erosion process dreaded by sailors. Could a warning be placed on this oxalic acid page?Jon Stephen Horridge (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We usually avoid giving practical advice (or impractical advice for that matter). Otherwise these articles would evolve into long lists.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would this be a good addition here? - Oxalic acid crystals are used quite often in "associated wood work" and are sold in hardware stores as 'wood bleach'. In the wood floor world, bleached floors are most often referred to as 'pickled' floors and the use of oxalic acid is part of the process: pickled floor refinishing EliavresEliavres (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ingestion of oxalic acid through skin contact or orally is dangerous.

Ingestion of oxalic acid through skin contact or orally is dangerous. . Ingestion...through the skin, makes no sense. Ingestion refers to things taken orally. 70.171.3.221 (talk)BGriffin —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Safe disposal of oxalic acid

I am thinking of buying some oxalic acid to use for rust removal.

Please would someone knowledgeable add information about safely disposing of it, in the "Toxicity and safety" section ? (Which is what I came to this page for.) Darkman101 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We just are not in the business of giving advice (see WP:NOTMANUAL). And I wouldn't rely on advice here anyway. In most countries, suppliers would be required to give information on safe disposal. If I were disposing of a few ounces, it would go into the toilet because I have a lot of faith in water treatment facilities. It is toxic to critters, at least until it all gets converted into an insoluble derivative with calcium or iron. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethylene glycol sentence

"if ethylene glycol is ingested. In the body, ethylene glycol is metabolised (i.e. degraded) into oxalic acid. Use of propylene glycol as an alternative antifreeze compound in antifreeze liquids avoids this potential hazard."

I removed this sentence once for a couple of reasons. It is prescriptive and even more importantly, it is ridiculous. You should use propylene glycol because then you won't then drink ethylene glycol, which you shouldn't drink in the first place?JSR (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we dont want to give advice, and we would use better English. It does seem that the metabolism of ethylene glycol to oxalic acid is relevant to basic understanding. In fact we'd like to mention the pathway.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in this minor rant was removed by me and then reverted after an attempt to make it read better. I have no clue and little interest in the metabolic pathway, but I don't think that the suggestion to switch to propylene glycol is applicable or useful, and I left the paragraph in a condition where the metabolic pathway was discussed, at least in very broad terms.

In essence, I want to eradicate the above sentences from the article without engaging in an edit war. Which, I see you have accomplished. Hopefully you will have better luck at keeping it out that I did.JSR (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dealing Traditionally With Oxalic Acid In Food

I read somewhere that in Japan root vegetables high in oxalic acid are washed in rice vinegar to react out oxalic acid. Anyone know anything about that? I think it would be a good addition to the article.23.16.152.103 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)BeeCier

Almost a year late to answer you, but "Effect of Cooking on the Soluble and Insoluble Oxalate Content of Some New Zealand Foods" found that cooking the food items in water helped leach out some of the oxalic acid into the cooking water. "Effect of domestic processing and cooking on selected antinutrient contents of some green leafy vegetables" found similar results and notes that cooking or blanching the food reduced its antinutrient content. For Spinach, longer blanching times resulted in a greater reduction of oxalic acid (they tested 5, 10, and 15 minute blanching times). For Spinach, even 5 minutes of blanching reduced the oxalic acid content by 44%, and 15 minutes reduced it by 65%. Cooking in a pan or pressure cooker was also effective. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

fenestraria and optic fibers

the fenestraria and optic fibre needs a reference desparately - or is it a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.157.20 (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My searches (admittedly not terribly exhaustive) turn up nothing to support the claim. I've tagged it as needing a citation. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This website attributes the information (through a vague inline citation with no footnote) to "The Private Life of Plants," written by David Attenborough. This book can be read on the following website with a free account: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1928803W/The_private_life_of_plants

The quote in question does appear on pages 265-267 of the text, so I'm adding this as a source. Retnuh66 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry Shown

The shown chemical reaction, involving oxygen, is not balanced. Carbonylation is probably correct, but the use of oxygen is unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.50 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The reaction appears correct and balanced to me. And it is an oxidative carbonylation that requires oxygen. Here's an example in the literature: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om00081a029 -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the reaction is balanced. It is also patented by Rohm (see US patent 4,713,483).JSR (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

oxalic acid run off in lawn after rust removal...sodium bicarbonate neutralization

Best method to detoxify oxalic acid after using on concrete rust spot removal. Tom Walker (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)