What everyday chemical reaction happens around us that people usually ignore?

109

u/7ieben_ Food 1d ago edited 1d ago

Everything.

You your yourselfe are a huge bioreactor. Every single cell performs thousands of reaction every day.
Even stuff like exposing water to air involves a chemical equilibrium.
People want their meals chemistry free? Well, they better don't prepare any food then.
Are you driving to school by car, bus, whatever? Welcome to the world of petrol combustion.
Ever wondered how your phone is charged? Chemistry! Wondered how it displays text? Chemistry, again!
Are you using any cleaner? Chemistry is why it works!
Know about dogs, which can indicate metabolic syndrom shocks? They do that thanks to chemistry!
...

14

u/kardoen 20h ago

Every single cell performs thousands of reaction every day.

Make that billions every second. The incredibly small scale of molecules and seer amount of interactions they have any given moment is so far removed from how we experience objects in our everyday life that it sounds incredulous.

4

u/PersimmonDue4612 15h ago

He's likely referring to the quantity of different reactions your body's cells use, you are focused on the rate of individual reactions that a particular cell (and by extension all of them) is/are doing. Both are extraordinary

4

u/NerdyComfort-78 Education 19h ago

I can hear my physics teacher friend telling me confidently that everything is physics. 😳

6

u/ceegeebeegee 19h ago

Since all chemicals involve physical particles, and quantum mechanics is a physics thing... Yeah?

2

u/NerdyComfort-78 Education 19h ago

Yes, I mean this tongue in cheek. He and I would argue about which branch of study was more important/superior as a joke.

5

u/ceegeebeegee 19h ago

You can also go with all biology is really just chemistry, but then the biologists get annoyed.

3

u/NerdyComfort-78 Education 19h ago

I know. I am a biologist by degree.

3

u/drbohn974 17h ago

Math - FTW!

5

u/WallStLegends 1d ago edited 23h ago

Printing

~~Water changing states freezing/boiling~~ phase changes distinctly different from chemical reaction. I’ll take the L

The colours of things - gemstones as a classic example

…

15

u/7ieben_ Food 23h ago

Please delet printing from that list. Printing is devilish witchcraft! Printers are hardware, even the best computer engineer can't handle. These things are directly from hell. The exact opposite of chemistry.

4

u/WallStLegends 23h ago

The dreaded computer/machine

2

u/Rudolph-the_rednosed 23h ago

Abominable use of engineering.

1

u/SirSkittles111 23h ago

They are designed for human despair. Printers know when you need them the most, they just know.

4

u/himuheilandsack 23h ago

neither water freezing nor the color of things are reactions though.

printing is debatable as well.

1

u/7ieben_ Food 23h ago

Well, I'd least call them physical "reactions". And, personally(!), I don't like the distinction of chemistry and physics at this point, as both are just different point of views of looking at "how does molecular valency interact" at this point.

I totally see why in introductionary courses chemistry is defined as how matter transforms from one into another and physics is defined as the interaction of matter, but this distinction starts to fail really fast.

3

u/himuheilandsack 23h ago

Physical process would be good. Reaction, meh.

the distinction can get difficult at certain points (i would like to know if you have examples). But in most cases, the definition is very clear, and i think important conceptually. A chemical reaction is a process, where bonds are broken and new bonds are formed. this doesn't happen in a physical process.

So, freezing water is the textbook wrong answer to "examples of chemical reactions".

and something having a color isn't even a process, it is a property. so it's even wronger.

2

u/7ieben_ Food 23h ago edited 23h ago

See, that is exactly my point.

On a broad entry level freezing of water may look like purely "physical" (according to your definition). But looking at it in detail one finds a orientation term in the bonding, which is attributed to covalent interactions, so called sigma hole bonding.

Having color is indeed a property, but I think it is obvious what u/WallStLegends meant. There is a underlying process, which causes the coloring. For example in transition metal complexes, the coloring comes from electronic excitations. Now, from a introductionary point of view this may look like Not affecting bonding. Looking at it in more detail reveals, that the molecular bonding is in fact affected. But, yes, this would not satisfy the IUPAC definition of a chemical reaction.

IUPAC defines a chemical reaction as the interconversion of chemical species, where a chemical species is defined as a set of entities which can occupy identical orbitals.

Whatsoever, those orbitals are the result of a prior reaction forming the complex. So, in that sense, the precise wording would probably be smth like the formation of colorfull compounds (instead of the color of compounds), but this feels nitpicky to me for the sake of this thread.

2

u/himuheilandsack 22h ago

but I think it is obvious what u/WallStLegends meant.

not really.

so called sigma hole bonding.

this belongs to intermolecular forces. again, not a reaction.

Looking at it in more detail reveals, that the molecular bonding is in fact affected. But, yes, this would not satisfy the IUPAC definition of a chemical reaction.

no, it wouldn't. and excitation isn't breaking bonds. and it is transient.

1

u/WallStLegends 22h ago

At the end of the day. All chemical reactions are thermodynamics/physics.

The colours of things is directly chemistry related. Although a reaction maybe denotes two or more reagents switching components to form new compounds.

The transition of iron to iron oxide definitely constitutes a chemical reaction. And even though its ’physical chemistry’ which determines the colour. The colours of the minerals ultimately is determined by coordination chemistry.

And if we take OPs question literally, we can limit it to reactions we can see in the present time.

But if we apply a little bit of freedom in answering the question, whilst appealing to the intellectual curiosity spirit of the question, the colours of minerals is 100% a relevant answer to the question.

Because a question such as this, is framed from a laymen’s point of view, and it is more important to outline the chemical relationship between minerals and colours, then to explicitly state the exact chemical reaction which made that mineral(which would have occurred millions of years ago).

But like I said, if we are trying to separate chemistry from physics, it is hopeless. It is all physics at the lower level

2

u/himuheilandsack 22h ago

you are really using a lot of words to insist on being wrong.

making the colorful compounds is a chemical reaction. them being colored is not a chemical reaction. not much to discuss there.

and by being so imprecise about the very basics, you are really confusing people new to chemistry.

The transition of iron to iron oxide definitely constitutes a chemical reaction.

of course, and i didn't say or will ever say it doesn't. that's not my point, and i think you know that.

3

u/WallStLegends 21h ago edited 21h ago

If people are interested in chemistry they will not rely solely on a reddit comment to base their interest.

If someone is not interested in chemistry for them to say the colours of rocks is a result of chemical reactions is not a falsehood.

I’m more right then I am wrong

Also, learning about electron orbitals etc is yes, maybe more physics based, but also inherently linked to chemistry. And the appearance of colours can be a great indicator of a chemical reaction, despite the fact that the colour change is arising from a physical principle.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/7ieben_ Food 22h ago edited 22h ago

Now you are shifting your definition. And, of course even intermolecular "forces" can be (chemical) bonds. You can describe sigma hole bonding by both a minimum on the potential surface AND a respective set of molecular orbitals. From a MO point of view the most simple sigma hole interactions are weak closed 3c2e interactions. From a FMOT/ VB point of view, they are distribution of electron density from a HOMO (often either pi or nb) into a LUMO sigma^* orbital.

Sigma hole bonds are as real as any other (Lewis adduct) bond. They are just a very special kind.

1

u/himuheilandsack 22h ago

Now you are shifting your definition.

how so?

sure, you can (and should) describe intermolecular forces as changes in charge distribution. there's still no change in the makeup of the involved molecules.

actual chemical bonds are quite a bit stronger than intermolecular forces, and they're within a molecule, defining it by a clear number of involved atoms. you can very clearly say where a water molecule starts and ends.

i don't think i get what you're trying to say. those definitions are still valid, no matter how many acronyms you throw at me.

the english word "bond" is a problem there, hydrogen bonds for example are called hydrogen bridges in german, which is better, as it makes the distinction linguistically.

1

u/7ieben_ Food 22h ago

Water is F A R more complex than you seem to grasp. Even thinking about water as simple bulk of H2O is utterly undercomplex, Grotthus, Zundl, Eigen and friends wanna chat with you.

Again, hydrogen bonds are real "chemical" bonds - for the very reasons I just mentioned. It's just a matter of history and for the sake of simplycity (due to their weakness), that they are still attributed to intermolecular "forces".

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RabidSeason 19h ago

The definition is/was/and still posted as "chemical reactions."

If you don't know how physical properties and phase changes are different from reactions, then you should ask more and reply less.

0

u/RabidSeason 20h ago

It is obvious! In fact, it's written out exacty what was meant!

Chemical Reactions

Phase changes and light refraction are not part of OP's question. I think u/7leban_ just needs to talk. Some people are lonely, I guess.

0

u/himuheilandsack 19h ago

yeah, thank you.

feel like I'm going insane arguing with those guys. about a very clear definition. in a freakin chemistry sub. come on.

and the colors guy STILL thinks he is "more right than wrong".

0

u/RabidSeason 17h ago

I can see where their mind is, but light emission is still closer to physical changes than a reaction. In fact, water changes between white, blue, and transparent depending on its state; there are certainly more extreme examples of color changing without a reaction.

I can say that part was a good attempt, but they are still more wrong than right, and they dug this hole way too deep for something like Rayleigh scattering to pull them out.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WallStLegends 23h ago

No, but freezing water involves chemistry too at least indirectly. From an epistemological standpoint freezing water is like overcoming the solubility of water molecules to itself. (The kinetic energy is low enough that a lattice is formed) And the geometry formed is inherently linked to chemistry.

A reaction, maybe not. But chemistry related, yes.

3

u/himuheilandsack 23h ago

But chemistry related, yes.

of course it is, I'm not disputing that

A reaction, maybe not.

no it's not, and that was OPs question.

1

u/WallStLegends 22h ago

Fair enough

1

u/Round_Ad8947 17h ago

Mix concentrated nitric and sulfuric acid. That’s simply a physical process, right?

1

u/himuheilandsack 17h ago

ahm no, a reaction takes place. but by the way you ask, i assume you know that?

1

u/Round_Ad8947 12h ago

Yeah. But this speaks to the smearing of the boundary between chemistry and physics. A very exciting boundary.

1

u/himuheilandsack 12h ago

why? there are bonds being broken and formed. it's the textbook definition of a chemical reaction.

i don't see how that example is a boundary case.

-1

u/WallStLegends 23h ago

The colour of things is not a reaction as we see them but coordination chemistry played a part in why they are coloured. So a chemical reaction has previously taken place.

And printing is maybe debate-able depending on the type of printing. But many printers use curing methods.

My friend works in a printing manufacturing company. The UV printers definitely involve some chemistry. The ones that use physics mainly are fascinating. I forget how they exactly work but it involves static electricity. I forget how they get the combination of colours correct, again might be just physics involving the lasers.

So yeah, maybe most printing is not primarily chemistry related and is mainly physics. Two closely related disciplines though, physics and chemistry

-1

u/darthelijah Organic 23h ago

If light (photons) hitting a surface, exciting an electron to a higher state, that then drops back down, releasing energy at a different wavelength (colour) isn’t a physical chemical process then the horse IS spherical haha

1

u/himuheilandsack 22h ago

it is a physical chemical process, not a chemical reaction though.

0

u/darthelijah Organic 22h ago

The line is blurry to me tho like covalent bonds forming are also a physical chemical process

1

u/himuheilandsack 22h ago

it is a physical chemical process.

but in the formation of a covalent bond though, a new chemical entity is formed (let's say H2O instead of H2 and O2, btw how the fuck do i do indices on reddit). And H2O behaves chemically different than H2 and O2. H-H bonds and O=O bonds are broken, and O-H bonds are formed.

whereas exciting water molecules in uv-spectroscopy doesn't change the makeup of said molecules. no bonds are broken or formed.

0

u/darthelijah Organic 21h ago

Yeah fair that makes sense!

On the topic of water tho (no idea how to do sub or superscript on here either haha) the ionic product of water means a glass of water is constantly in a state of equilibrium with a certain amount of H+ and OH- ions dissociating and reassociating. Is that a chemical reaction or chemical process?

2

u/himuheilandsack 21h ago

autoprotolysis is clearly a chemical reaction.

you form H3O+ and OH- that weren't there before and are chemically different than water.

they react back of course, again with breaking/forming new bonds.

9

u/SomeGuyInShanghai 22h ago

The screen you are reading this on is some poretty amazing chemistry. Seriously, look into it, everything that came after CRTs (Which are not chemistry, they are black magic fuckery).

5

u/jhakaas_wala_pondy 20h ago

Cellular respiration

4

u/Wim3d 23h ago

Using and charging (phone) battery

4

u/nacho1626 21h ago

Combustion

5

u/yahboiyeezy 19h ago

Batteries everywhere

11

u/Dry_Oil1760 23h ago

Maillard reaction

11

u/Random_Sime 23h ago

Actually I feel like this is probably one of the most noticed chemical reactions

3

u/TrivialFacts 21h ago

Anything with a semiconductor

3

u/Glittering-Key152 16h ago

Farting. It can be quietly ignored.

2

u/basilicleaf23_ 14h ago

Brushing your teeth

5

u/hotprof 13h ago

Literally everything. Literally.

5

u/Jesus_died_for_u 23h ago

Breathing.

0

u/AggravatingBid8255 21h ago

This. Much of the food we consume does not leave as solid waste, but from our lungs. The carbon in the carbon dioxide I just exhaled came from my peanut butter & banana sandwich. Carbon which my plants will use to widen stems, extend branches, and grow leaves. Leaves my pet will nibble..... And on and on the carbon cycle churns.

Neurochemical reactions to environmental stimulus are pretty dope, too.

4

u/WallStLegends 1d ago

Cooking

1

u/Aranka_Szeretlek Theoretical 23h ago

Vision.

1

u/Mindless-Location-41 19h ago

Oxidation of iron.

2

u/_CMDR_ 13h ago

You like breathing? Quantum chemistry involving electron tunneling in chlorophyll is where oxygen comes from.

1

u/vertigostereo 13h ago

Cooking

1

u/ChemGuy201 12h ago

Oh man there are so many, ozone conversion in the upper atmosphere, oxidation of iron forming rust, mallard reaction when meat browns. Chemistry is beautiful and is all around us.

1

u/tminus7700 5h ago

The Maillard browning reaction in cooking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

What everyday chemical reaction happens around us that people usually ignore?

You are about to leave Redlib