Template:Did you know nominations/Stöber process

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Stöber process

(

)

Aerogel thermal insulator protecting a flower from a Bunsen burner

... ~~that silica aerogels can be prepared by the Stöber process, and are powerful enough thermal insulators for NASA to use on a Mars rover and to protect a flower from a Bunsen burner (pictured)?~~
- (ALT1):... that mesoporous silica nanoparticles are prepared by the Stöber process and are used in preparing biosensors and delivering medications to within cellular structures??

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Josh White (racing driver)
Comment: Either of the images might be better if cropped. EdChem's preference is for ALT0.
Sources: That the Stöber process can results in silica aerogels under the right conditions: page 368

That aerogels are powerful thermal insulators: page 368

That a silica aerogel was used on a Mars rover: page 315

That the Stöber process can produce mesoporous silica nanoparticles: [1] and [2]

That they have biosensor applications: [3]

That they have intracellular drug delivery applications: [4]

That NASA used the nickname "solid blue smoke": [5]

That the density of a Stöber process aerogel can be near the density of air: [6] and [7]

5x expanded by Imminent77 (talk) and EdChem (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 10:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC).

A "solid blue smoke" aerogel

(ALT2): ... ~~that aerogels (pictured) can be prepared by the Stöber process, and have very low densities, close to that of air?~~

A remark on the hooks: they should not be attempting to summarise the article, but just have one hooky fact that will lure the reader to click. All the 3 hooks here have an extra "and" attached clause to say something extra. It will be better if you say the hook in one clause. Otherwise the exciting bit is the part that does not mention the Stöber process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I will note that the article is big enough and expanded by about 10 times. Correct people are credited. Still awaiting QPQ. Although pictures are used they do not directly relate to the Stöber process, and the areogel in the pics may not even be from the Stöber process. On the copyright violation side of things one sentence is pinched, "with a blue cast from Rayleigh scattering that appears...." although a quote, a quote is not needed and the facts can be expressed in other words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just added QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Josh White (racing driver), and had a reminder from BlueMoonset about this nomination. I've done research and think I can establish that NASA aerogels are produced from a modification of the Stöber process. EdChem (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I have provided a QPQ, and struck ALT0 and ALT2. I have also redrafted the sentence with Raleigh scattering, though as a quote it was not a copyvio. I have added references establishing the pictures are silica aerogels and quoted the description of the preparation, which describes making a Stober gel and then using supercritical drying to remove the solvent. A more advanced synthesis of the Stober gel in sc-CO
₂ exists but I have yet to add it. Offering new ALTs.

A "solid blue smoke" aerogel

(ALT2a): ... that the NASA aerogel (pictured) is prepared by a modified Stöber process, and is a solid with a density close to that of air?

NASA silica aerogel as a thermal insulator

(ALT3): ... that a NASA aerogel, prepared by a modified Stöber process, is a powerful thermal insulator and able to protect crayons from the heat of a Bunsen burner flame (pictured)?

@Imminent77: in case you have any comments / thoughts.

Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For alt2a and alt3: Checking out the reference, the stardust references fails to mention Stöber, and the book reference does not talk about NASA in this way, so either the hook is some kind of sysnthesis based on extra knowlege that I don't have, or it is unsupported, or perahps there is yet another reference that can support the idea that NASA uses Stöber process. Also although the stardust reference compares it to air, it is more than 30 times denser, so I don't think that is close at all. Its is like saying the density of gold is close to that of lithium. Also I would only count that as half a QPQ assessing a hook or two but not the rest. (I would not cont this as any kind of QPQ for my own use, but give it as a freeby or followup). I would accept NASA saying its areogel being as dense as air, but not actually true type hook, but in any case we need a source that links Stöber process to the NASA used or illustrated products. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For ALT1 hook is in the article, an references (by two refs) which I have confirmed OK in one. Letting the QPQ 50% slip past, I will give this the baby blue AGF tick for ALT1 with no pic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Request promotion be delayed while I try and address Graeme's concern. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: Are you still seeking time for this or is it ready for promotion? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for the prompting. I've been juggling on and off wiki and am getting behind, for which I apologise. I would prefer not to go with ALT1 just because it is much less interesting than the others, IMO. Graeme is correct, however, that referencing NASA using a modified Stöber approach is not easy as the process used is often not named as such and a chemist will recognise a Stöber method when others won't. Graeme is a chemist so I think if I can make changes to his satisfaction then hopefully a better ALT can be chosen. My co-editor, Imminent77, has arranged a GOCE review which has been discussed at his talk page, and the holiday period is obviously an interruption. I will try to make progress today and ask for a few days further indulgence, but if this is ultimately promoted from Graeme's ALT1 tick, I'll accept that. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)