Talk:Acetaldehyde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Acetaldehyde is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Core	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I removed the claim that the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase mutation leads to higher alcoholism rates in native americans. It is directly contradicted by the reference given (which states that native americans don't havmake sense: if you immediately puke everytime you drink, obviously you won't become an alcoholic.

The higher alcohlism rates in native americans probably has something to do with alcohol dehydrogenae mutations. AxelBoldt 20:12 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Some persons from far-Eastern descent" is PC terminology that only makes sense in the context of talking about members of American society. It is absurd to talk about "persons from far-Eastern descent" for someone in the Far East who always has and still is living there. How about some terminology that is more international and less America-centric?

Contents 1 L-glutamine does not contain a thiol group 2 Recommend a change from acetaldehyde to ethanal 3 Addictive? 4 Citation for US production of acetaldehyde

[edit] L-glutamine does not contain a thiol group

"L-Cysteine and L-glutamine, which each contain a thiol group, can force conversion back into ethanol, to similar effect."

Should there be something else instead of L-glutamine? Sampo Tiensuu 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend a change from acetaldehyde to ethanal

The IUPAC name for the chemical is ethanal, but it has been acetaldehyde for some time. I feel that it should be named according to the IUPAC method for naming chemicals.

Tyler 23:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• In fact, the page is correctly named according to current IUPAC recommendations: see R-5.6.1. Ethanal is an alternative name for the same compound, but acetaldehyde is preferred. Physchim62 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the reccomendation; The IUPAC name is ethanal, and IUPAC uses that as its recommended name for all examination boards and schools. Furthermore, if you reference the IUPAC website, any reference made to acetaldehyde is placed in brackets.

--Phil 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except schools uses the name acetaldehyde. Physchim is correct - ethanal is only really used as an alternative. I searched Google for how many times ethanal and acetaldehyde are each mentioned on iupac.org - ethanal is mentioned 9 times, acetaldehyde 98 times. And not in brackets. So the wiki article's name should remain acetaldehyde.

Ben 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

See also [1]. Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i feel that this is incorrect. For a start, the wikipedian article on IUPAC organic nomenclature specifically says 'acetaldeyde is named ethanal.' If the systematic name is stated as acetaldehyde here then this is a discrepancy between the two pages.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_nomenclature#Aldehydes>

Additionally, the acdlabs link provided is very rare, and i can find many other links refering to it as ethanal. It is common knowledge that the form, acet etc. names are old fashioned and are not part of the iupac nomenclature system. The reason that the system was invented was to create order, hence the use of common prefixes: meth, eth, prop etc. Although clearly not the most popular name, the systematic name is clearly ethanal and thus should be written as the systematic name.

Also See:

[2] [3] [4]

--Javsav 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What some people seem to be misunderstanding here is that the ACD Labs link is an online copy of IUPAC's Blue Book (A Guide to IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Compounds (Recommendations 1993)). Therefore it is an authoritative source of information on IUPAC nomenclature.

There is no doubt that Physchim is correct that IUPAC prefers acetaldehyde. He is a professional chemist and fully understands this issue. The other editors who are calling for the article to be renamed ethanal appear to be school students, who are learning the basis of systematic nomenclature and have therefore been introduced to the name ethanal.

I searched Google for ethanal (about 105,000 hits) and acetaldehyde (about 1,860,000 hits). Therefore, according to Google, acetaldhyde is about 18 times more commonly used than ethanal. This itself is quite compelling evidence to maintain the article's name as acetaldehyde.

If supporters of the name ethanal are adamant the article must change, I would very much encourage them to visit the WikiProject on Chemicals and make their views known there, rather than continually reverting this article.

Obviously, no hard feelings to you all. I just want to see IUPAC recommendations followed.

Ben 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

No hard feelings to you either, high and mighty university student (despite the fact that I'm doing IB HL chem). You do know that the names are denoted 'systematic' for a reason don't you? Because they follow a SYSTEM. Yes. A system. 'acet' is not part of this system. I'll leave my comment unindented because I'm only a high school student.

Javsav 06:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings to you all! But the styleguide seems pretty clear to me, the name that most English speaking users would recognise as the most used name should be used as the article title (and if the original author named it acetaldehyde, than that is the name that the article should have). If we follow systematic naming, testosterone would be impossible to find .. oh wait, that's why there are redirects to where the actual data is (sorry for the cynical tone). What I mean is, I am not in favour of namechanges because of 'following a system', I would only warrant namechanges if there are mistakes in the name originally chosen (i.e. spelling and such), when subjects from different disciplines start to have problems about the same title, and maybe when two names are used which are quite close in count (then a namechange to the systematic name is warranted).

This dispute is coming up every now and then on different pages, I am still in favour of the recommendation to put this subject (systematic -, trivial -, and commercial names) into a single page, and use a template to redirect to that page, so that these renaming discussions can be taken to one point in the Wikipedia, see here).

About Google-counts. Google counts links, if there is one important, good document with the name acetaldehyde, where millions of pages link to, it may not be the most-used name, though it would get a high google-count. Please, stop using them in arguments (eventhough in this case I guess there is a bias for acetaldehyde, difference is quite impressive). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get wound up, Javsav! This isn't top trumps - I'm honestly not saying "do what I say because I'm one rung above you in education", that would be arrogant. No-one asks to see your qualifications to allow you to edit WP - you just have to be correct! I understand your argument, I really do. In fact I teach A-level chemistry at the moment, so I'm well aware of how it seems when you're studying a course that regards systematic names as king. When I was doing my A-level chemistry two years ago, I preferred ethanal.

The problem is that A-levels and IB deliberately ignore the finer points of the IUPAC system, namely that many compounds' systematic names are discarded in favour of trivial ones. They do this for two reasons: firstly, to avoid overburdening students with facts they must memorize; and secondly, so that they can ask exam questions on systematic nomenclature. Physchim's link is an IUPAC document. The fact that it is on ACD Labs website is irrelevant. It is an online copy of the bible of organic nomenclature, written by the people who invented systematic nomenclature as we know it. If you consider ethanal to be part of the system and acetaldehyde not, then IUPAC are saying "ignore the system for a moment, we have decided acetaldehyde is to be used".

Quoting an article on Wikipedia is not an acceptable source - the organic nomenclature article should be updated to say that despite the system, many compounds should only be referred to by their trivial names.

The long and the short of the comment is that ethanal is not what most people think of when they see CH₃CHO, so let's not get any grandiose ideas about the need to subject the whole of Wikipedia to "the system". I feel that what Javsav is proposing is a chemical form of hypercorrection (meaning number 2).

Ben 11:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Actually the form, acet, proprion, butyr, val blah blah series are systematic. Not the same system as Me, Et, Pr, Bu, etc., but they are consistent. I personally think that it is a really dumb idea to use the systematic nomenclature in school exclusively because when students go to university, they take so long to adapt. Rather, they could learn the rule for what it is, and just get used to the common names which are used (very often with the IUPAC's blessing as well). --Rifleman 82 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are systematic, but only those up to butyr... have IUPAC blessing. Acetaldehyde is the IUPAC preferred name, despite what some educational authorities think. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i support a change to ethanal, and the first sentance should say also "known as acetaldehyde". ethanal is the systematic name for the compound, therefore it is easy to see how it is related to similar compounds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.235.3 (talk • contribs).

Oh, please no change to ethanal. I realize that many would-be editors are striving to be strident about something. Chemists in the real world - and those that contribute the most content to WE - do not use the term ethanoic acid or ethanal or hydroxyethane. IMHO.--Smokefoot 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

First rename morphine to its reall IUPAC name! Nobody would suggest this, because the use of old used names makes it easier to work. IPAC knows this and encourages the use of stupid names like benzaldehyde, terephtalic acid and oxalic acid instead of the systematic names!--Stone 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addictive?

"smoking." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 25 Feb. 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-242792> says:

"Other constituents, such as acetaldehyde, have addictive effects of their own. Cigarettes, therefore, are much more addicting than nicotine medications..."

So I added a bit about that. Nonenmac 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for US production of acetaldehyde

A possible citation would be Weissermel, Klaus & Arpe Hans-Jürgen (2003). Industrial Organic Chemistry, Fourth Edition. (p 166). New York: Wiley-VCH. [5]

Ehnebuske 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)