:Talk:Lithium

i like fortnite

The natural abundance of Li-6 and Li-7 are given in the article as 4.85% and 95.15%, respectively. However, several other sources quote values of 7.59% and 92.41%, including the original source that Ref 6 quotes. I am simply unable to find a first-hand reference that quotes the abundances mentioned in the article. Therefore i propose the adjustment of the values in table "Main isotopes". Heppatyttö15 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:The essential problem is that commercial lithium is often depleted of the minor isotope, and does not match the natural abundance. The listed abundances are the midpoints of the intervals [https://ciaaw.org/lithium.htm given by IUPAC]. There used to be a comment to this effect, but it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_lithium&action=history removed]. I should put it back. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

::Replaced with the intervals themselves. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The following content appears on a reference for the "0" oxidation state of Lithium:

• Li(0) atoms have been observed in various small lithium-chloride clusters; see {{cite journal |first1=Milan |last1=Milovanović |first2=Suzana |last2=Veličković |first3=Filip |last3=Veljkovićb |first4=Stanka |last4=Jerosimić |title=Structure and stability of small lithium-chloride Li_nCl_m^(0,1+) (n ≥ m, n = 1–6, m = 1–3) clusters |journal=Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics |issue=45 |date=October 30, 2017 |volume=19 |pages=30481–30497 |doi=10.1039/C7CP04181K |pmid=29114648 |url=https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/cp/c7cp04181k}}

That paper never discusses oxidation state of Li as far as I can tell.

I don't think the zero oxidation state of any element is notable or needs a reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:Exactly.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

::Please get consensus for this at WT:ELEM. All of the element-infoboxes use a central data-set. And it should also presumably be in sync with Template:List of oxidation states of the elements that is used in the oxidation state article, which explicitly notes that it's all about compounds and complexes. That means 0 is not automatically listed for every element, because standard state is not a combination with another element. DMacks (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

First sentence should not be "Lithium is a silvery soft alkali metal." it should be "lithium is a chemical element with the symbol li and atomic number 3 2603:8080:D03:89D4:D503:4989:CB26:4FAF (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:Ayup, fixed. Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

::For reference, the consensus seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::That page "is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." (was marked 'historical' almost four years ago). The most recent consensus is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive_62#"a" chemical element or "the" chemical element. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"Lithium itself is a non-renewable resource.{{Cite book |title=¿Cómo se forman las aguas ricas en litio en el Salar de Atacama? |last=Álvarez Amado |first=Fernanda |date= |publisher=Universidad de Concepción |year=2023 |language=Spanish |trans-title=How does the lithium-rich waters of Salar de Atacama form?|series=Serie Comunicacional CRHIAM |last2=Poblete González |first2=Camila |last3=Matte Estrada |first3=Daniel |last4=Campos Quiroz |first4=Dilan |last5=Tardani |first5=Daniele |last6=Gutiérrez |first6=Leopoldo |last7=Arumí |first7=José Luis|p=22}}" just after this existing sentence: "It has been argued that lithium will be one of the main objects of geopolitical competition in a world running on renewable energy and dependent on batteries, but this perspective has also been criticised for underestimating the power of economic incentives for expanded production.[98]". Also add a link to geopolitical (geopolitics). Desalado (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reflisttalk}}

:Sorry I don't understand the point of adding that sentence. There are very few renewable resources: why would anyone expect lithium to be among them? I move the sentence, reworded it, and linked it as you suggested. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for answering, Johnjbarton. The point of the sentence is to make clear that while lithium is important for certain renewable energy technology, it is itself not renewable. I think it is a valid point to tell the reader this, since while it may seem obvious to some we should not expect the reader to be aware of this situation. Desalado (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If a helpful editor can add this under "Environmental issues":

Some animal species associated to salt lakes in the Lithium Triangle are particularly threatened by the damages of lithium production to the local ecosystem, including the Andean flamingo{{cite journal|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-05233-7|pmid=29789737|title=Chilean Atacama site imperilled by lithium mining|journal=Nature|volume=557|issue=7706|pages=492|year=2018|last1=Gutiérrez|first1=Jorge S|last2=Navedo|first2=Juan G|last3=Soriano-Redondo|first3=Andrea|bibcode=2018Natur.557..492G|doi-access=free}} and Orestias parinacotensis, a small fish locally known as "karachi".{{Cite news |title=Karachi, el raro pez chileno del altiplano que vive en salares y peligra por la extracción del litio |last=Jerez |first=Sara |date=2024-11-20 |url=https://www.biobiochile.cl/especial/aqui-tierra/noticias/2024/11/20/karachi-el-raro-pez-chileno-del-altiplano-que-vive-en-salares-y-peligra-por-la-extraccion-del-litio.shtml |access-date=2024-12-13 |work=Radio Bío-Bío |language=es}}

Sincerely, Desalado (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The current section on Extraction ends with a mish-mash of maybe-technologies with primary and newsy sources. I think a review source like

• Abdullah Khalil, Shabin Mohammed, Raed Hashaikeh, Nidal Hilal, Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges, Desalination,Volume 528, 2022,115611,ISSN 0011-9164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115611.

would be a much better approach. Section 1 of the review document the changing research scene and section 2 lists various options being explored. The conclusion is that no new method has reached production potential.

I would write such a summary but it would mean removing some existing content. Comments? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)