Wikipedia

Talk:Bisphenol A/Archive 4

< Talk:Bisphenol A
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Project Osprey in topic Bisphenol A as a plastizicer
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Really poor and misleading

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article repeatedly claims that BPA is "an ingredient" in plastics and is used to make plastics. As a chemist, this is grating. BPA is a reactant used in the syntheses of various plastic polymers. In plastics it is present either as a trace contaminant left over from the reaction or possibly as a degradation product. IMHO, wikipedia should be more careful to distinguish between plastics which are materials formulated (or "made from") from polymers, and various other ingredients (plasticizers, stabilizers, pigments, and other additives) and man-made polymers (synthetic polymers). While the term "plastics" can be used to mean either, the distinction between the two is important when discussing ingredients. The fact is, there are all sorts of toxic nasty chemicals used in polymerization. Would it be useful (or accurate) to describe PVC (polyvinyl chloride polymer) plastic as containing the poison gas chlorine as one of its "ingredients"? This seems to have been written by the "all chemicals are bad" (know-nothing) crowd. Polymers are (usually) the majority ingredient in plastics, true, (and some plastics are almost pure polymer, but those are the exception). Using the latter term as a synonym for the former is just sloppy. The reality is that once a chemical molecule reacts it no longer exists, which is different from a chemical mixture where each compound retains its chemical properties and can be separated back into the pure state (usually). The point is that BPA is not (despite the FDA's sloppy wording) a component of plastic any more than you contain fish, beef, or rice as "components". Its called chemistry.Abitslow (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, what specific changes would you like to make? Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BPA is employed to make certain plastics and epoxy resins. BPA-based plastic is clear and tough, and is made into a variety of common consumer goods, such as water bottles, sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs Two problems with this. Firstly, BPA is not used in "certain plastics", it is basically used in ONE class of synthetic polymer, which is polycarbonate. Secondly, to list "water bottles" under "common consumer goods" is EXTREMELY misleading. Most readers will assume that "water bottles" means the bottles in which you purchase Evian water at the supermarket (or similar). In fact, polycarbonate is only used to make the 25 litre bottles of water that sit on top of office water dispensers. All drinks bottles including those in which mineral water is sold in shops are made from PET, which has no connection with BPA at all. This sort of thing only adds to the hysteria and pseudoscientific ramblings that we so commonly hear. I would strongly suggest that the sentense is reworded as such: "BPA is used as the base material of the plastic called polycarbonate, and also epoxy resins. Polycarbonate is clear and tough, and can be used as a component of some common consumer goods, such as some sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs. It is also used to fabricate the large 25 litre containers used in water dispensers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref idea

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/bpa-free-bps_n_6465214.html?utm_hp_ref=green

[1]

Bananasoldier (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really a preferred source since it's a news article rather than a scientific journal article. Besides, this well-publicized study was a primary animal study on the effect of Bisphenol S (a compound related to BPA) on Zebrafish. We should really wait to see if reliable secondary sources discuss this information and human studies will be far more valuable as citations. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a slight correction: there are two polymer families based on bisphenol-A: polycarbonates as cited and also resole epoxy resins that are glycidyl ether derivatives of BPA (commonly used as the basis for the brown colored coating on the interior of a common steel food can). There are also secondary polymers based on such epoxy resins made by reacting the residual epoxide groups with polymerizeable end groups. A closely related polymer family to the epoxy resoles are the so-called phenoxy resins in which the terminal epoxides have been converted to nonreactive end groups. I fully agree that bisphenol-A is a reacted component in all of these and not a blended ingredient. Slange8780 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Slange8780

References

  1. ^ Visser, Nick (13 January 2015). "The Chemical In 'BPA-Free' Water Bottles May Be Just As Unhealthy As BPA". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 18 January 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

BPA considered safe by EFSA since Jan 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Jan 2015 EFSA announced that there are no consumer health risk from bisphenol A exposure http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/150121.htm, they even updated thei BPA FAQ. There are links to EFSA website in this article and information that should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.88.141 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 23:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


That was a article, not a scholar research. by phoniex--36.225.98.184 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing, original research & neutrality

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I have tagged this article for these potential problems and raised a query about it at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article can use some work. Many references need to be improved and updated. Fortunately there is a great deal of study going on with many new reviews to help us in our work. I'll list a few as time permits. Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so I now see this article has rung alarm bells before. There's plenty of good sourcing, so really no reason why this should be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I take special interest in children's health and hope to see the article improved using some of the many new sources that are available, though my time is very short right now. Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There is indeed a lot of material, which I'm beginning to get my head around. Its quality is variable, as one wold expect. We do however have very good sources (EFSA, NHS, FDA, etc.) seemingly unanimous in finding that BPA is probably harmless - but not that all suspicion of harm is removed. Our current article seems to have chosen sources - some of them really poor - to paint a rather different and alarmist picture. We should be able to bring our article much more into alignment with the mainstream and trim the vast amount of cruft. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to note, the same kinds of issues are also apparent in the Bisphenol A section at Endocrine disruptor. Alexbrn (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • This 2015 statement from the Endocrine Society is interesting: doi:/10.1210/er.2015-1093. This article seems to weigh pretty heavily on regulator statements without really explaining the position from scientists such as the authors of the Endocrine Society's statement and vom Saal. For that, you can see:
      • FDA Panel Accepts Findings On BPA (2008) - title is misleading, but here's what happened:

        The FDA Science Board, a group of scientists drawn from academia, government and industry that advises the FDA commissioner, voted unanimously yesterday at a meeting in Gaithersburg to accept a report done by a subcommittee that blasted the agency's recent risk assessment of bisphenol-A (BPA), a compound found in baby bottles and the lining of food and soda cans. The report, released earlier this week, said the FDA ignored scores of government-funded studies that linked exposure to low doses of BPA to increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, hyperactivity and cancer in laboratory animals and that its margin of safety was "inadequate."

      • BPA IS FINE, IF YOU IGNORE MOST STUDIES ABOUT IT (2015) - seems to characterize the crux of the issue as a debate over whether academic studies have contaminated samples which show higher than actual levels of exposure.
      • Scientists Condemn New FDA Study Saying BPA Is Safe: "It Borders on Scientific Misconduct" (2014) - discusses an interesting $32m CLARITY project to get FDA and academic scientists on the same page.
      • BPA: The Scientists, The Scare, The 100-Million Dollar Surge (2014) - interesting critique of vom Saal and colleagues II | (t - c) 07:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Any decent MEDRS sourcing for any of this? We shouldn't be using newsy sources to undercut high-quality RS in what is evidently a politicized area (especially in the US it seems). Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't really look, maybe you can. The Endocrine Society statement is a MEDRS, obviously, but it doesn't touch on any of the interesting stuff. The 2008 FDA Advisory Panel conclusion is probably MEDRS, but dated. I don't plan to spend any time on this topic beyond chiming in here. II | (t - c) 08:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bisphenol A. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bisphenol A. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Bisphenol A. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bisphenol A. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC) There are a few things missing from the Environmental Risks section, so look out for changes coming soon. Krcomo Scohen23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)(talk) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

According to the usual Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be split (because its size interferes with its maintenance and readability, I guess). So I suggest that we split the basic chemistry, retaining a small fraction of the extensive biomedical reporting, and something focused on the exposure effects.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At around 11,600 words it seems to be in the "almost certainly should be divided" category of WP:SIZERULE. --tronvillain (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
But yes, reducing the safety and possibly regulatory sections to paragraphs with a link to a main article on "Safety of bisphenol A" or "Safety and regulation of bisphenol A" or something would probably work. No rush.--tronvillain (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. However, the controversy sections (safety, exposure, regulation) seem to be overlong even by themselves. Almost 200 references in those sections but often no overall conclusion.--Project Osprey (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "often no overall conclusion"? Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I am thoroughly dismayed that an article that discusses a toxic substance that is banned from many aplications in most of the civillized world by legislation and has more than adequate references to that effect is medically challenged at all. I must insist in an inquest to the origins and intentions of that challenge. I will check if this notice will not be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSOG1959 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Studies like the one you reference used to dominate this article. At that time, the article was more about side effects than it was about the other chemical properties - namely utility in making polycarbonate. As of today it appears to be a more concise article that talks about a chemical, it's utility, and its side effects. I think this is a better article. Go back 4 or 5 years for the article you seek. Then read about the NIH CLARITY study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlprater (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to upload a gif, in .ogg format, of a rotating BPA molecule, but keep hitting a page that says that the upload is unconstructive to wikipedia. I have reported the issue in Wikimedia, but am looking for advice as to how to upload. Scohen23 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the above: The uploaded gif/ogg is NOT bisphenol A. It has an additional methyl group added to one side, additionally the phenyl rings are not flat and have the wrong number of double bonds. This image/gif should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.49.36.15 (talk • contribs)
You're right. The image is incorrect. I have now removed it and will nominate it for deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Solubility confusion.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In different sections BPA is described as poorly soluble in water and also having high solubility in water. Both can't be right! Recent Runes (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done--Smokefoot (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Colorless vs. white

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The text says colorless, but the side panel says "Appearance White solid." Jidanni (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


CP 133 Group 19 Edits

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I think Health Effects, Environmental Effects, Toxicity, and Uses should at the top, in the order that I just listed. That seems to be what the general public would be most interested in reading about when they are searching about BPA. There should be more health effects added to that section, because currently there is only general information about how it is an endocrine disruptor. We should add that it is linked to cancers, hormonal imbalances, fetal developmental disruption, CNS effects, and much more potentially. Other possible edits would be to make the sentences flow smoother grammatically. Lastly, I will hyperlink certain words that may be unfamiliar to people, such as epoxy resin, to other wikipedia articles about them for reference. After reading feedback from Group 18, I have decided I will add some examples of the state legislations that were placed to regulate BPA content in products like cups and baby bottles. Lucy H Ahn (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but I disagree. First of all, we have an entire article dedicated to the theme that interests you: BPA controversy. Otherwise, the health effects a mixture of legitimate concerns and near hysteria over some weak science. The question to me is not what we think readers want to read, but what they should read: indisputable facts and decades of technical impact. A phenomenally useful compound that has had powerful benefits for mankind: polycarbonate plastics (and many associated materials). One should not downplay the massive, massive contributions to modern society just because one accepts that the controversy is more important. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I will also be adding some common products people use that are known to contain BPA under the "USES" section. Lucy H Ahn (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that since you are probably not equipped to discuss the chemistry, discussing the controversy and medical effects is facilitated because Wikipedia has an article for that purpose: BPA controversy. The main catch is that claims about medical themes really need to be high level. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate more about how BPA actually gets into the body. I can add this under the health effects section. Ebang21 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ebang21

This is a human health issue and you must be careful to follow our standards. Please read WP guidelines carefully. Ask questions on anything that you do not understand. Gandydancer (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will instead be adding under the History section which states in the United States that currently have BPA restrictions in place.Ebang21 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Ebang21

Under the "Toxicity" section, I wanted to include more toxicity studies by the FDA to show the latest research on how BPA may or may not be accumulating in living organisms through doses that are much higher than human exposure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexjennifer (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I included more information about toxicity in the toxicity section, including the possible irritation that BPA can cause. Toxicity is a common concern with this chemical, so I thought it would be useful to add more information that is already available. Amunoz18 (talk)

CP133 2019 Group 18 Peer Edits

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there group 19! Note to other active editors on this page: this is a required assignment for our class to post on this. If there are any concerns, we can provide contact info to our instructors regarding this issue. Thanks!

Grace:

1. I do believe Group 19's suggestion on including a Toxicity section to the article does substantially improve the article. They added current studies examining BPA toxicity. Another focus of the group was to include hyperlink for key words that may require more in-depth understanding. I found that to be a great addition to the article as some words or terms may not be familiar to all.

2. The draft does reflect a neutral point of view. The language displayed a neutral tone in summarizing the FDA's research premises and the conclusion from the finding. I hope that others will be able to continue the work Group 19 has started and expand on this section further.

Ghuynh (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Angela

1. From the edits that have been made, I believe it's improved the article by providing more information regarding the toxicity of BPA and linked information regarding research studies performed to test toxicity, just as Grace mentioned. I liked how each member had different focuses on parts of the essay that helps generally improve the overall article (i.e. toxicity section, history, introduction). Based on what they mentioned for potential edits, I believe they have achieved their goals thus far in making the changes to the article.

2. I believe I see they cited a source under toxicity, but to what I saw, it was a primary article. It was easily accessible, and I think it's appropriate for this article. It's likely this is a growing field of findings and interest regarding BPA toxicity. It does not seem to be an issue and I think group 19 is doing a great job with their edits!

Chang2021 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Sodhi:

1. I believe that the edits Group 19 has made thus far have improved the article by providing additional information regarding BPA toxicity, which has been a topic of concern in recent years. I also agree with Grace that the hyperlinks are useful contribution to the article and very nicely done. Overall, it appears that Group 19 has done a good job in implementing the changes they desired based on their discussion for potential edits.

2. As Angela said, the findings and interest regarding BPA toxicity have grown in recent years and I believe a primary article is appropriate. Group 19 has done a great job in maintaining a neutral tone and presenting findings in a well rounded way, which is important when discussing a controversial topic. Keep it up Group 19! Jsodhi1 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Harini Bhat:

1. I agree with my colleagues above that group 19 did a good job of surveying the already provided information and pinpointing the areas that need more support. I believe another area that would be good to add to are any updates in legislation surrounding BPA in the United States. The most recent legislation seems to be from 2016, but I'm sure there have been further programs or policies since then, so that could be a good addition.

2. Group 19 did a good job of maintaining the integrity of their resources via links back to the original primary source and appropriate phrasing in their own words. I don't see any issues of plagiarism here. Good work!

Bisphenol A as a plastizicer

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Bisphenol A is not a plastizicer, but it is often referred to as such, even in the scientific literature doi:10.3390/genes8100269. I intend to add a note to the lead trying to explain this but I'm struggling to find a really good ref to back it up. It would need to be a secondary source or better, like Ullmann's Encyclopedia. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I inserted that ref. Looking over that Ullmann review, all external (vs in-chain) plasticizers are esters, including phosphate esters. On a separate topic, I dont know how you handle the label of monomer, in my book its not really a monomer.
(edit conflict) Many thanks. An appeal to Ullmann is your Bat-Signal. Yeah, I wasn't too sure about that when I changed it but 'precursor' seemed too peripheral. Co-monomer perhaps? --Project Osprey (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Look at the article polycarbonate where in the lead Bisphenol A is actually described as a monomer. In PC production it is a monomer. In epoxy production it is a monomer precursor. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Good catch, but the fact that some editor wrote "Bisphenol A is a monomer" doesn't mean that the statement is correct! This is Wikipedia after all.
Maybe its a nomenclature thing, but a monomer to me makes polymers of the type [monomer]n. The empirical formula is the same for monomers and the derived polymers. Polyolefins would be an example. But many authors use the term loosely.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I've tried looking into this but without much luck. It would appear to satisfy the IUPAC definition of a monomer. Comonomer isn't a well defined term but seems more apt. There doesn't seem to be any other term which fits alternating copolymers. Sometimes these nomenclature discussions can go on for ages, but I'm not so interested this time - I'll leave the discussion here. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Again @Smokefoot - I slightly disagree. The first polymerization I ever witnessed was the Nylon rope trick. Even Nylon 66 is a polycondensation. It may be difficult to get consensus on this issue. I prefer on balance to leave as is at the moment and to carry on looking for suitable secondary or tertiary sources for definitions. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The nylon rope trick is a cool demo but irrelevant to our discussion. What I am seeking is some appreciation that monomers polymerize to give (monomer)n. There are lots of polymers and most are produced from low MW precursors. But for the most part, those precursors are not monomers. In my book. Nylon is not a polymer of a diamine and di-acid chloride. Cellulose is not a polymer of glucose. It is a polymer derived from glucose. Polystyrene (ignoring end groups) IS a multiple of styrene, a monomer. Monomers for the most part are unsaturated. But it seems unlikely that this discussion is going anywhere.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. It will be fine leaving as is until anything else is published. At least we agree it ain’t a plasticizer! GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is however, sometimes included in phthalates as a stabiliser (antioxidant),[1] which might explain the confusion. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "European Union Summary Risk Assessment Report - Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP)". JRC Publications Repository. European Commission. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bisphenol_A/Archive_4&oldid=1099305904"