Talk:Potassium iodide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would be very surprised[edit]

I would be very surprised if, as claimed in this A-class article, HI were a better reducing agent than I-.--Smokefoot 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the part about the iodide being oxidized more quickly in acid is due to the fact that
  • The oxidation of iodide to iodine by oxygen (and not to an oxyanion of iodine) requires acid
  • And HI has a positive enthalpy of formation and will decompose exothermically to form iodine and hydrogen gas.

The confusion probably comes from HI being used with red phosphorus to reduce ephedrine to methamphetamine. --71.227.190.111 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Information that potassium iodide can be useful in case of "problems" on nuclear reactor only and "cannot protect against other causes of radiation poisoning" is not correct. Fallout after nuclear explosion contains large amount of iodine isotopes. --Varnav 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Suppliers[edit]

I would like to have a discussion about the usefulness of chemical suppliers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119

At KI, I have the feeling, that the list of suppliers is not neutral.

Best regards

Delisted GA[edit]

This article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of inline citations. Tarret 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was renominated for GA status on 3/17/2007. I looked at it again, but I cannot list as it still fails the citation criteria. There are also several ?s in the infobox as well. Dr. Cash 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To explain my reasons for not listing this as a good article, again, it's primarily citations. There are several statements in the article that need to be cited. For example:
  • "Potassium iodide is used in photography, in the preparation of silver(I) iodide for high speed photographic film:" This statement not only lacks a citation, but also leads directly into the equation without adequate explanation. It's awkward. A separate sentence (at least) should introduce the equation.
  • "In medical use, it can also serve as an antiseptic for people suffering from sore throat." Definitely needs referencing - the amount of supposed medical information on wikipedia that's unverified is ridiculous. "The dose is 0.5g-1.0g in 100mL, with the accompany of iodine (0.5g-1.0g in 100mL)." Specific dose information also needs a reference.
  • "KI is also used as a fluorescence quenching agent in biomedical research because of collisional quenching by its iodide ion."
  • "In aqueous solution with elemental iodine, it acts as a gold etchant and will attack and dissolve gold surfaces."
  • The entire 'radiation protection' section is weakly referenced. The one reference at the end of the section, linking to ki4u.com, I'm not sure I'd exactly call, "reliable." The table in this section is a bit awkward, too. Not sure how this fits into the article.
  • 'Precautions' has no citations.

In addition to citation, the infobox also lacks information, specifically with reference to the properties and structure sections. I don't think ?s in this table are really acceptable for articles of WP:GA status. These items should either have valid information, or "n/a" for not applicable.

Fix these things, and I think it would be a GA. But I cannot support as a GA without these issues fixed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Derek, thanks for these recommendations. In my perception these apply to WP:FA status instead of WP:GA status. When this article be brought up to Featured status, these certainly should be taken into account. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Slightly bitter"?[edit]

I remember it as foully nasty. Tweeq (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dose[edit]

There is a chart showing 130 mg as dosage. Further down in the article, it talks about the dosage being 250mg. I don't know which is correct.Gmosk (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. The dose for blocking the thyroid against radioiodine is only about 100 mg iodide per day (adults), whereas the dose to block the thyroid from secreting thyroid hormone is as much as 750 mg iodide per day (adults).SBHarris 00:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the dose for the solution measured in milligrams while the dose in the tablets in micrograms? Are we off by a thousand here? --Jon 75.119.130.158 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dose in tablets (the anti-nuclear tablets) is in milligrams. They are always 100 milligrams. You can get supplement tablets for nutrition which have doses far less (in micrograms, about 1000th as much) but they aren't the same thing, at all. SBHarris 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the standard pills are in mg size (total) however, the actual KI that is in the pill may be lower. There maybe confusion in this article between, standard pill size and KI content. At this critical time, each number in this article should be verified. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected and added source. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please provide sources for [1], [2], [3],. The mcg may be causing confusion to readers. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still confusion about the dose. The article says, "two (2) drops of U.S.P. SSKI solution is equivalent to one 130 mg KI tablet (100 mg iodide)" -- but it also says a typical adult dose is "5 drops." Five drops, then, would give you 2 1/2 times as much KI as one tablet. Do we have an error in the article?
Also, it seems that many people are confusing milligrams with micrograms. If we were to explicitly say that the dosage during nuclear emergencies (130 mg) is 867 times larger than the Recommended Daily Allowance (150 mcg), would this be correct? 174.24.126.88 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this number is close to correct, although not quite, since the anti-nuclear-accident tablets always have 100 mg iodide (130 mg KI = 100 mg iodine). So they are 100/0.15 = 666 times larger in dose (okay, it's closer to 667, so not so beastly) than the nutritional dose. I've inserted this in several places in the article. This is one reason why KI antinuclear tablets and SSKI are never used for nutritional purposes-- they are both roughly 300 to 700 times more than the RDA/DRI for iodide/iodine. Also note that the adult dose of SSKI used for thyroid storm (thyrotoxicosis) or to loosen cough mucus, is 750 mg iodide per day (1 ml SSKI in divided doses), which is 7 or 8 times larger than the anti-radioiodine dose used in nuclear emergencies. The 100 mg iodide/150 mg KI tabs were designed for nuclear emergencies, with only this dose in mind, as the amount one adult needs, per day, in a nuclear emergency. The pills would have to be given at a dose of up to 7.5 pills per day to correspond with how SSKI is used, but they're not designed for that, and doctors never use the pills when they want to treat thyroid storm or (quite rare use, now) use iodide in such quantities, as an expectorant to treat thick mucus cough. This much iodide really has too many side effects to be used except for fairly dangerous things. And in addition, it absolutely cannot be given to women who might be pregnant, unless their lives are in acute danger from thyrotoxicosis, or they are heavily contaminated with radioiodine. SBHarris

The USP formula vs. true saturated solution formula[edit]

I ran through the calculations, and the two kinds of SSKI are essentially identical. They both contain about 1000 mg KI per mL OF SOLUTION. This is made from about 140 g KI and 100 mL of water to yield 140 mL of solution with density 1.72. It is pure luck that a saturated solution of KI happens to be about 100% wt/v KI. So that's how/why it is made up to those round numbers by the USP. SBHarris 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Is the most commercially significant?"[edit]

"Is" sounds like a tall claim to base off of 26 year old statistics(1985). Second sentence first paragraph: "This white salt is the most commercially significant iodide compound, with approximately 37,000 tons produced in 1985."174.63.24.238 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of data is not readily available, and until something better comes along, it is quite reasonable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Teratogen?[edit]

In the current "Precautions" section, it is stated that "Potassium iodide is a possible teratogen." There is currently not a reference for this claim, nor does the Teratogen article specifically list KI (though radioiodine from fallout is listed).

Teratogens can cause severe birth defects at the genetic level. The claim that KI (Potassium Iodide) is a possible teratogen is not well-defined in the article. Alcohol and Tobacco are listed teratogens, and if KI-treated table salt(in high doses)is also teratogenic, then perhaps some clarification such as "In high doses (or repeated high exposure), Potassium iodide exhibits teratogenic properties". Without some clarification, the inference is that the reader is "possibly" putting their family at risk by ingesting KI-treated table salts or NaCl substitutes resulting in side effects including two-headed cattle and cleft palate.

The article is far more polished than it used to be. Is it GA-worthy again?

WoodForge (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed in immediate area of plant[edit]

From article:

"People in the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl itself, however, were not given the supplement.[30]

Potassium iodide’s (KI) value as a radiation protective (thyroid blocking) agent was demonstrated at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident when Soviet authorities distributed it in a 30 km zone around the plant."

Two adjacent sentences claiming practically opposite things. Something is clearly wrong, or at least unclear, and I can't access source 30 so I can't verify it. --131.111.85.79 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at resolving this in the short term ("Reports differ..."), but I think someone with more knowledge will have to settle the argument in favour of one opinion or the other. AndyB (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Potassium iodide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stability? If one opens an old unopened bottle of potassium iodide 130mg tablets, how well does it protect against nuclear accidents and nuclear bombs?[edit]

Assume storage at room temperature. In the summer the room temperature may be temporarily as high as 28C maybe.

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potassium_iodide&oldid=1212527769"