Talk:Sucrose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemicals WikiProject
Chemistry Portal
Sucrose is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, 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.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
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 following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

This article is in need of urgent upgrading. I am no expert but have a layman's interest in scientific advances in the study of glucose/sucrose/fructose in the human diet. Even I can see that the comments on the adverse health effects of the fructose component of sucrose are way off the mark. Recent studies have identified Fructose as a major culprit in causing insulin resistance, diabeties, obesity, artery/heart disease etc. The Wikipedia article on Fructose contains much of the required information; it just needs to be worked into the Sucrose article by someone who knows what they are doing. 121.45.110.194 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Boiling Point

It says the boiling point of sucrose is ".dec" what does that mean?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.85.89 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

It means it decomposes before it theoretically boils. 67.42.75.190 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

People, and in fact most other mammals except members of the cat family, will gladly accept a food sweetened with sucrose, even if they aren't hungry.

Does anyone know why cats are unique? Do they dislike the taste of sucrose, or do they only refuse sweetened food if they're not hungry? --Bkell 07:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page says cats lack the enzymes to digest sucrose. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ
faulty gene on a feline ancestor - search on Washington Post site. GraemeLeggett 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


In addition, the statement that most people/mammals will take sugar even when not hungry is nonsense. It has no factual basis at least as far as humans go. Someone remove/reword it

[edit] Erm...

My cat does... but I suppose that doesn't make for a good reference...


a local vet says that they simply don't taste it, or don't taste it very strongly: if they're going after something sweet it's probably because it has fat in it as well (i.e. melted ice cream). i guess if they don't have enzymes to break sugars down they don't need the taste receptors either. — Clarknova 18:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dude, Cats are just too smart, that's why. -Tim

Wrong-My cat ate a sugar solution! Scorpionman 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical name

Do you want to stick the other chemical name on?

[beta]-D-Fructofuranosyl [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside

Source: http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/app.html

Phil If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 01:13, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Formula

When I was researching Maltose ,Something struck me as odd about the chemical formula. I came over here and found out what was wrong, the same fomula for this is repeated over there. So which is the right one?

The empirical formulas are the same. Note that the full names differ.GraemeLeggett 20:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... isn't that an alpha-alpha linkage in the picture?

Yeah, I'm confused. I thought alpha-fructose has the alcohol group (OH) upside in the anomeric carbon 83.44.34.89 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health problems

Sucrose is composed of two simple sugars: fructose and glucose. Now, I can't count how many times I've heard the phrase "sugar is bad for you". What part of sucrose is bad: the fructose, or the glucose? Or both? Scorpionman 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not thinking.. Glucose is a sugar, fructose is a sugar, sucrose is a sugar. Sugar is bad for you. 219.77.98.28 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure

Your structure is wrong - it shows D glucose and L-fructose - should be D-glucose and D-fructose. Good picture is available on commons. See the difference:

Wrong !
Wrong !
Good !
Good !
You are correct. I've fixed the mistake. (In the future, you're welcome to do it yourself.) Edgar181 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the "sucrose.png" be removed, and "saccharose.png" renamed, then? Or at least swop the names? I don't know how to do it. Remember to swop the names in this talk page if you do. 219.77.98.28 09:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar and cancer

I removed the statement, "Studies have also shown that tumors, especially cancers, consume most of the sugar people eat." There is a grain of truth there, in that many cancer cells take up glucose at a faster rate than the cells of surrounding tissues, making it possible to locate metastases by using PET scanning to detect concentrations of radioactively tagged glucose. That's entirely different, though, from saying that cancer consumes most of the sugar people eat, a statement that is self-evidently untrue for the vast majority of people who don't even have cancer. Since the true statement is really about glucose, not sucrose, and is far more relevant to articles about cancer and radiology than to one about sugar, I thought it better to omit the reference than to correct it. Paul Turner 16:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent link addition?

I am skeptical that "your cleansing source online" [1] is a reliable source to include in this article. I would like to see some references to medical journal articles about sugar "leeching nutrients from the body because it is so nutriet poor". Anyone care to give opinions? --Syrthiss 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a commercial site selling a colon cleansing program in which one receives supervision and instructions from someone calling himself Jos-hua Medicine Man. I took out the link and the information taken directly from it. Paul Turner 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
lol I hadn't seen that. Ok, good call on both our parts. :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

Some users were saying above that cats can't taste sucrose. Well, I highly disagree. I made a saturated sugar solution, poured the incredibly thick syrup on the ground, and my cat saw it and started licking it up! Can anyone explain that? Scorpionman 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ur retarded if you think that just because you put some sugar water on the floor and your cat ate it means that they can taste anything. if you put just normal water on the floor the cat would eat it too.

[edit] Changed 'junk food' reference (NPOV)

I changed the sentence reading "As such it is common in many processed and junk foods" to "As such it is common in many processed and so-called "junk foods"." I feel this is slightly more neutral. Joeylawn 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Diamonds

I think the safety diamonds have recently been updated for sucrose. The new bottle in the lab I work in is rated health-1, flamability-2, and reactivity-1. I wonder what they're thinking of when they say sucrose is a "slight" health risk? "Warning: may cause obesity if consumed in large amounts"? --AaronM 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering why would something that is consumed by just about everyone on Earth would "cause irritation but only minor residual injury". Someone mind checking this out?BeefRendang 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Sucrose contain fructose? Don't think so...

I am not a chemist, but I thought sucrose contains two glucose molecules, not one glucose and one fructose, as the article claims? Is this an error or am I mistaken? 24.20.118.3 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Dan

You're mistaken! See for instance http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/546sucrose.html
Ben 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the disaccharide consisting of two dextrose (glucose) molecules is maltose. Groogle 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combustible?

Is Sucrose actually combustible? I thought it simple decomposed but I only have three years of high school backing me up so there's a good chance I'm wrong. If it can is there something that must happen like direct flame or no flame and only heat?

  • There is an amazingly fun way to test this one out yourself - all you need is a bag of sugar and a flame! Inhuman14 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The sugar mill in Savannah, Georgia blew up the other day, killing 12 workers. Sugar dust is a dangerous explosive !! That should settle the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.237.3 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where does it come from?

The article does not specify what the main sources of sucrose are. Is it the suger of sugar cane? Or are there other important sources of the substance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.156.173 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The natural origin of sucrose is living-plant photosynthesis, energized by visible light -- whereby (typically) sunlight, water and carbon dioxide (from the air) are reacted.
Does anyone know of any other radiant-energy process other than visible-light photosynthesis which can produce sucrose or some other simple hydrocarbon ? Such a process could provide an energy storage, transport and recovery mechanism far superior to hydrogen, I think !

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.237.3 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chewcowenthia

What's chewcowenthia? A google search comes up with nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.236.126 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing H?

The picture of sucrose only has 21 Hydrogens. The two pictures on this talk page each have 22 Hydrogens. The missing one is attached to glucose-carbon 5. The carbon immediately below the non-cyclic carbon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.55.240 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)