Talk:Bleach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Home Living (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Home on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

There's a problem with ref #3[edit]

Seems the link is not appearing. Tried to fix it, but couldn't see the problem. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. The colons and slashes had been escaped.  Randall Bart   Talk  22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with sodium hypochlorite?[edit]

There is also a Wikipedia article about sodium hypochlorite. I would suggest merging these two articles, or at least strictly disambiguating them (for example, discussing only chemistry in the article about sodium hypochlorite and only household use in the article about bleach). Thomas.Hedden (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter option seems preferable to me since the Bleach topic is more general. There should probably be more discussion of non-chlorine bleach here, too. Michaeld42 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Although there is considerable overlap in word & product usage, the tangle can be minimized with careful editing & generous use of hyper-text cross-linking in existing related discussions.
--Wikidity (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Bleach graphic?[edit]

Per someone else's comment above, I would like to replace the White King image with a Clorox Liquid Bleach image, as it would better illustrate the article for most people (for example, see [1]). As always, I welcome feedback. GVB012009 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All -- per my earlier suggestion, I replaced the store-branded bleach graphic with one of Clorox Liquid Bleach. Please let me know if there is an objection. GVB012009 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Obadasi Study Perspective[edit]

All, I'd like to post a perspective on both the Bleach and Sodium Hypochlorite discussion pages pertaining to the Odabasi references (8 and 9). I have reviewed the information and found the results interesting, but Obadasi, et al. did dimensionalize the potential risk to consumers or to workers (of which it appears to be vanishingly small):

1. The highest level that Odabasi cites for concentration of carbon tetrachloride (seemingly his biggest alarm) is 459 micrograms per cubic meter -- that translates to 0.073 ppm (part per million), or 73 ppb (part per billion). The OSHA-allowable time-weighted average concentration is 10 ppm -- almost 140 times higher -- and ***over an eight-hour period***.
2. The OSHA highest allowable peak concentration (5 minute exposure for five minutes in a 4-hour period) is 200 ppm, twice as high as Odabassi's highest peak level (from the headspace of a bottle of a sample of bleach plus detergent).

I do think that we owe it the readers, if we wish to include the Obadasi information, to put it in perspective. I would welcome feedback from the group before making such an edit. GVB012009 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Occurrence of Potassium chlorate[edit]

Nowhere in the article it is mentioned that most bleaches contain small amounts of Potassium chlorate. Often this extracted compound is used to make explosives. In the Anarchists Cookbook, there was even a recipe for making plastic explosives (though the latter should not be mentioned in the article). Still a mere stating that it contains the compound and that it is used for making explosives should be mentioned. Perhaps it can persuade the pharmaceutical companies of leaving it out or make more environmentally sound alternatives

All, the amount of chlorate that is present in bleach is not only ***quite*** small, it is really swamped out by chloride (present in molar levels equal to hypochlorite). Isolation would be virtually impossible; if you had the wherewithal to do so (through chromatography or otherwise), you would have more than ample smarts to generate it through oxidation of chloride. I think that this is one of those seeds best left unplanted: if we reference "chlorate" in Wikipedia (which seems innocuous enough), and that page is edited to contain this usage, then so be it. But here seems inappropriate. My two cents.... --GVB012009 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. There's small amounts of many things in most other things. We don't live (and never have lived) in a pure world. The joys of entropy. Freestyle-69 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sodium chloride and salt[edit]

The article tells me that sodium hypochlorite degrades to sodium chloride and decomposes to salt. I hope someone with more chemical knowledge than I can make this more meaningful.  Randall Bart   Talk  22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Degrade and decompose are generally synonymous in chemistry, although decompose is probably the better word here. I've added the equation for decomposition of hypochlorite in the Chemistry section. Michaeld42 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, salt is another name for sodium chloride in case that was unclear. This is such a common usage that I'm not certain anything needs to be changed.Michaeld42 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref 13 no longer available[edit]

MSNBC sez, The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at msnbc.com. Michaeld42 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental safety[edit]

" *Neither carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, nor teratogenesis are indicated" needs a source/citation68.225.192.99 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All -- I added a reference today (the European Union report) in which data to support this are cited -- the content appears to have been stipped out -- is it appropriate to put back in, with the citation?
Additionally, on 10/21/2010, some cretin punked the page, stripping out text on AOX. When his "contribution" was deleted, that text did not go back in: "High levels of absorbable organic halides (AOX) can be found during reaction of sodium hypochlorite and soils, including carbon tetrachloride, trihalomethanes (THM, such as chloroform), and trihaloacetic acid (THAA, in this case trichloroacetic acid). Most AOX go into the sewer with wash water." I would recommend putting that back in, as well as the follow-up that the AOX going into the sewage (or septic systems) is found to be readily degraded.GVB012009 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Direct link to Bleach series[edit]

Honestly, i can't stand going to this page about the chemical every time i search for the manga, make it a direct like to the manga series, please !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.205.230 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Animepedia. Shii (tock) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a hatnote at the top of the page (with a direct link), or you could search "Bleach (manga)" Livewireo (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the apparent popular belief among Wikipedia users, the vastly primary usage of "bleach" in English is in fact for the chemical, not for a comic book. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Every day, hundreds of millions of people use bleach. A far smaller number reads the Bleach manga. Therefore, the chemical is more significant and should be the first page someone sees when searching for bleach on Wikipedia. Gary (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't a larger number of the Wikipedia users that search bleach for the manga? I typed bleach and I wasn't looking for the cleaner. And to be honest, I don't know very many people who don't watch that show or read the manga. Plus this is wikipedia not chemopedia. 74.166.95.229 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, how many people you know that read the manga or watch the anime is irrelevant. The naming conventions are very clear, and as much as I'm an anime fan, they are also correct. As has been noted, a direct like to the article is right at the top of the page in case of any confusion. Theres really nothing to be done. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't watch the show, I don't read the manga, and I don't know anyone who does. If they do they don't tell me about it. I do know what bleach is though and I use it to whiten my clothes and disinfect things. I know many other people who use it for this purpose. How old are the people you know who read this manga? I suggest you're looking at the notability of the manga with some bias. Gary (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Search Bleach on Google, see what comes up. I think the bleach manga is far more relevant than the chemical. While everyone uses it, that does not make it more notable. I would like to ask if dust is more notable than Intel's new core? There is much more dust in the world. Notability is based on how much people, note something, or what importance it has for our culture. Bleach(chemical) is something people don't really talk about, 14 references, small article. The bleach franchise is a widespread trend of today; 119 references, thousands of chat rooms, websites and fan-clubs. It isn't bias, it's notability. 72.152.36.78 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bleach (manga) defiantly seems most relevant to all the major search engines. "bleach", the manga

Google: top 10 results (11'th being colorox, some company, then it has the next 10 results again.)

Yahoo: top 21 results (22 being Maholo, some company)

Bing: top 20 results (21 being Maholo)

note that i used the en-us versions of the search engines.

i cant find a single search engine that supports bleach (the chemical) being anywhere close to the relevance of the manga :p can you? 83.109.134.26 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

YYYyeeeeesssss, let's change this article so that it no longer refers to the household chemical that has been around for 224 years and is familiar to the entire English-speaking world as such, and instead make it refer directly to a Japanese "manga" comic book about a youngster who can see ghosts that has been around for 12 and that is read by a narrow niche of teenage boys. And the basis for this change should be the frequency of search engine hits, because those things consistently and accurately measure the fundamental definitive cultural significance of everything. I can't wait! KDS4444Talk 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

major cleanup[edit]

there are many false claims claims about bleach that need to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


The anecdote about fish swimming away from bleach seems frivolous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.229.6.112 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can it be proven or disproved though? If it is disprovable, remove it right away, if it can't, add a source needed note. 72.152.36.78 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All -- I tried to provide perspective that I have understood, though I do not currently have a source at hand. The implication is that fish sense the hypochlorite, and will try to swim away from it. In a large body of water, they can escape the hazard, but if inappropiately dumped into a koi pond or aquarium, it is toxic, per the reference cited in the section (newly added). I also included the paragraph above to provide a conclusion from the European Commission that there is no significant environmental risk under normal use conditions.GVB012009 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This kind of thing needs a source. Unless you actually performed this experiment in person, how do you know about it? (Daniel Tsadok) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.207.40 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Conducting an experiment in person would be an instance of original research and not appropriate anyway. There are lots of things you can know with a high degree of certainty without conducting an actual experiment yourself— you just can't include them in a Wikipedia article without citing a published source is all. KDS4444Talk 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Resistant micro-organisms[edit]

The new reference (thanks for the response) for "create resistant micro-organisms" in the article seems in fact to be describing bacterial defense against hypochlorous acid, not the creation of resistance, akin to "drug resistance". From the source document: As a defense mechanism, bacteria employ the redox-regulated chaperone Hsp33, which responds to bleach treatment with the reversible oxidative unfolding of its C-terminal redox switch domain. I'm about to wikify the reference and remove the "drug resistance" comment, but would welcome a review of my interpretation as the topic is elaborated later in the paper, with particular reference to the notoriously protean e. coli. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

All -- First, I have gone through the reference, and the only bacterium cited as to the effect of the chaperone effect is E. coli. While the pathogenicity of E. coli is unquestioned, I do believe that the language "Ill-considered use may create resistant micro-organisms,[2] both at the site of application and at the disposal site, leading to aggravated health problems" is over-reaching. First, as stated, it is a singular bacterium cited in the article; no such effect has been cited nor found by the authors to suggest that the effect extends beyond E. coli (and thus the reference in this description of the article should be narrowed accordingly); and (2) the authors do not discuss nor imply that there could or would be a problem at the site of application, at the disposal site, or that it could lead to aggravated health effects. This therefore seems to rise to inference/opinion of the contributor.
Might I suggest that the citation (which incidentally is discussed without attribution under "Antimicrobial efficacy") be removed from this section (since again, the health effects are speculative at this time), and that the topic be commented on down in the "Antimicrobial efficacy" section. There, it could be noted that, "The authors found that at low (micromolar) sodium hypochlorite levels, E. coli appear to be able to develop a defense mechanism that helps protect the bacterium, though the implications of this defense mechanism have not been fully investigated." Seem right?
I do not wish to do this unilaterally without discussion; might I suggest a period of one week (i.e., 1/15/11), after which I would make the appropriate change if there is no comment to the contrary?--GVB012009 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Support this proposal: specific information and all in one place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Absent other comment, I will make this alteration today. THX GVB012009 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dilution ratio incorrect for disinfecting food contact surfaces[edit]

The site's recommendation of 1 part bleach to 9 parts water is ridiculously high. Toxic for food surfaces. That is a 1:9 ratio of bleach to water or 14.22 ounces of bleach to 1 gallon(128 ounces) of water. Someone needs to update the site.

The correct federal regulation for diluting bleach to disinfect food contact surfaces is 1:256 (.5 ounce of bleach per gallon of water) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.32.102 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

why does the milton sterilization method point to bleach? there are no details about this method in this article[edit]

why does the milton sterilization method point to bleach? there are no details about this method in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.84.164 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Milton is bleach 82.31.207.100 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link for ref 19?[edit]

msnbc.com says the text for ref 19 ("Mystery solved: How bleach kills germs") is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.32.193 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Medical use[edit]

No mention yet of medical uses.

  • Dilute bleach has been used successfully to clear infections in body cavities in Russia.
  • Bleach is an effective topical microbial where more popular options fail
  • Bleach kills yeasts & viri as well as bacteria

82.31.207.100 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous[edit]

So much space for environmental issues and no mention of toxicity and health risks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.252.69 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Elemental Chlorine[edit]

This edit discussed the environmental effect of elemental chlorine. I've removed it because elemental chlorine isn't used as a bleach per se, but I see that the article does contain a section "Chlorine Effects on Human Health". Does this need to be trimmed as well? --

Chemistry of Hypochlorite[edit]

Today I changed the Chemistry section from

"The process of bleaching can be summarized in the following set of chemical reactions:.."

to its present version

"The active ingredient in bleach, hypochorite ion, is produced by the following set of chemical reactions:.."

Rationale: The process of bleaching is not the chemistry of hypochorite ion formation per se, but rather the process by which hypochlorite ion bleaches chromophores.

Lawrence Chemistry (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Disinfection (formerly Dilution)/Water Treatment[edit]

The recommendation of treating water with 8 drops per gallon for 15 minutes does not match the recommendations I see from several government emergency management sites, and while it may be adequate for many situations, it can result in insufficiently treated water. The statement about further concentrations being no more effective and toxic is misleading, as it depends on how much bleach is consumed in treatment. The most significant issue is with contact time, 15 minutes is not long enough unless the water is relatively warm. Very cold, highly suspect water may require 4 times as much bleach and contact time.

As this can have serious health ramifications, the recommendations presented need to be more thoroughly researched and documented. Bcworkz (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I researched several resources and aggregated the recommendations for water treatment. I renamed the section to better represent the main content. The citation placed after the statement about further concentrations being no more effective and being toxic does not relate to the statement, so I moved the citation to the paragraph related to disinfecting surfaces, for which it does relate. I rephrased the statement to be less sensational. I also added text to indicate determining proper dilution levels is not that simple, and that boiling is preferred to bleach for treating water.75.174.186.30 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chloride of lime?[edit]

Why does chloride of lime redirect here, with no further explanation in the body of the article? I'm assuming it's some variety of bleaching agent, but I'm thinking it's more likely a calcium based one, although old names for various substances could be inexact. I am always sorely vexed when redirects like this happen with no reference to them in the body. I am hoping whoever set that redirect up can put something into the article to explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.212.29 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, chloride of lime is not a generic term for bleach, and may refer more directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_hypochlorite but I'm just having to intuit that right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.212.29 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Calcium hypochlorite is chloride of lime. This is a simple thing to add to an article in the relevant location, e.g.: "Calcium hypochlorite, also known as chloride of lime..." etc. If you don't see it yourself and you know the answer, you are always welcome to edit an article to include such uncontroversial information. But you are correct when you say that there should be a mention of chloride of lime somewhere— whoever made the redirect did it poorly and not in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. KDS4444Talk 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Use-by dates[edit]

So sodium hypochlorite breaks down gradually in water (and all non-hazardous forms are sold as a solution in water), but there's no reference for how long household bleach maintains its effectiveness.
~ender 2012-05-26 10:17:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

File:Clorox Bleach Bottle.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Clorox Bleach Bottle.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Clorox Bleach Bottle.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mode of Action has a misleading explaination[edit]

"Bleach, particularly sodium hypochlorite, has been shown to react with a microbe's heat shock proteins, stimulating their role as intra-cellular chaperone and causing the bacteria to form into clumps (much like an egg that has been boiled) that will eventually die off.[8]"

This wording makes it seem like the heat shock proteins cause this clumping, which it does not. It actually provides protections from low levels of sodium hypochlorite according to the article it cites. I suggest it gives a brief overview and instead links to the more in depth explanation in Hypochlorous acid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.146.12 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Toxicity[edit]

there's nothing about toxicity here, particularly in relation to the concentrations of bleach / hypochlorite used in water treatment and decontamination of animal feedstuffs (bleaching powder). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.128.118 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Chemical interactions seems bloated and unsourced.[edit]

The bottom half of the chemial interactions section is totally unsourced and feels like it's been written very quickly. Perhaps the whole "chemical interactions" section should be moved to the hypochlorite page? Sp3hybrid (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)