Talk:Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

EDTA Kd with different metals[edit]

It would be very useful to include the Kd values of EDTA binding to different metals - unfortunatelly I can't find any sources

EDTA bonds[edit]

We have an insert on this page that seems to weaken the notion that EDTA bonds to divalent ions. Is one of us going to have to look up association constants for this compound in order to determine specificity? The way the text reads, you would think you could use EDTA to scavenge things like octavalent osmium. Dwmyers 16:21, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was me who added "trivalent", for I had in mind that Iron(III)-EDTA is more stable than Iron(II)-EDTA... Actually I'm not sure where to draw the line; e.g. I never heard of any EDTA-Complex with a more than trivalent metal, but can't exclude the possibility... Maybe you'll just delete the "etc."? Malbi 13:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

tetrasodium edta[edit]

Ever since I was old enough to read (which was a pretty young age), I've seen tetrasodium edta in a lot of crap. Is it easily synthesized and not toxic enough a chelating agent in its produced concentrations to worry? In sum, WTF? It's not like I'm worried about additives, but they better at least have a real purpose--how does it preserve foods, and why do we use it instead of something else?

-Todan

EDTA and its derivatives such as Disodium or Tetrasodium are not a preservative per se. They aid preservation by sequestering metal ions in solutions, and impairing bacterial growth effectively "starving" the bugs of neutrients. They make the preservative added more effective. Pedantic I know

Scrabble trivia[edit]

Is there a source for the longest Scrabble word assertion? Isopropyl 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

EDTA causes lead to be relocated to the brain?[edit]

In the Uses section, it is stated, "Note that EDTA causes lead to be relocated in the human body into the brain so its use as an antidote has been discontinued." I have never read this, is there a citation of any sort? George100 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

blade 2[edit]

Can someone clean-up the "blade 2" reference in the trivia section (if it's even necessary to have this information in the acticle)? I know there's a movie, but isn't there a video game and also a TV series. Should it be "blade 2" or "Blade 2"? Also, a link to the movie/game/TV series would be useful. I've never seen that movie or the TV show or played the game otherwise I would change it myself. dq 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Recycling Lead Acid Batteries[edit]

The main article is seeking a citation for this - There is a good page on it at http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/electrics/elc_edta.html if that helps. I have no idea how to add citations so somebody else may want to alter it.

Lawrie 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

EDTA is also used in some fertilizers, to keep iron in solution and available for plant uptake.

IUPAC nomenclature[edit]

If anyone is interested, the IUPAC nomenclature should be 2-(carboxy(2-(carboxy(1-hydroxy-2-oxoethyl)amino)ethyl)amino)acetic acid, though I might be wrong. Just incase anyone is interested.

24.136.88.151 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is EDTA vegan? 66.30.67.235 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • As a synthetic molecule that doesn't occur in nature, EDTA is vegan, as are most preservative ingredients. 130.126.229.231 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is relevant info regaurding the toxicity of this compound being removed from this page?[edit]

User Edgar removed my findings on EDTA that were obtained from US government servers and are publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. This information was removed from the page citing a copyright violation? How does information reposted from a public government server constitute a copyright violation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to suppress information regarding this compound and its increasing use in a variety of food products as a preservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianocmedia (talkcontribs) 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The material you added is a direct copy of text published by the International Journal of Toxicology and is copyrighted. PubMed has been given the rights to reproduce the abstract on its webpages. Wikipedia does not have the rights do so. Feel free to summarize the results and add it to the text, if you like. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I understand now. Thank you for clearing up the copyright issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianocmedia (talkcontribs) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Two different drugs called EDTA[edit]

Check out this FDA article. According to them, the chelator for lead is "Calcium Disodium Versenate" with the chemical name of edetate calcium disodium. The other is simply edetate disodium, marketed as Endrate. The FDA says that the former, edetate disodium, has caused 11 deaths. I think we need to make clear the distinction on this page, to clarify and help avoid future deaths. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical properties?[edit]

I think the article should talk about the physical properties of EDTA, such as color, solubility in water and in oil at various pH levels and temperatures, and perhaps even boiling and melting points. The solubility is especially important, because of the wide use of EDTA and its toxicity. -Pgan002 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestions that we revise this report some more. The term EDTA means different things to different people. To the public and technicians, EDTA refers variety of salts (ethylenediaminetetracetates) that are used in application-specific formulations. To a hard-core chemist, EDTA is an tetracarboxylic acid. The folky approach is vague but useful to more readers, the chemical approach is rigorous but less interestint to readers. All forms are colourless and most are pretty insoluble in petroleum-based oils (of course the answer depends on the kind of oil). It's not very toxic (although determined idiots will figure out ways of hurting themselves): oral LD50 value (rat) for Na2EDTA is 2.0 – 2.2 g/kg. So you gotta eat a lot and contend with diarrhea.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I am starting to edit this article, focusing mainly on converting lists to paragraphs. But these sections look problematic: "Widespread use of EDTA and its slow removal under many environmental conditions has led to its status as the most abundant anthropogenic compound in many European surface waters.[citation needed]]] River concentrations in Europe are reported as 10-100 μg/L, and lake concentrations are in the 1-10 μg/L range. EDTA concentrations in U.S. groundwater receiving wastewater effluent discharge have been reported at 1-72 μg/L, and EDTA was found to be an effective tracer for effluent, with higher concentrations of EDTA corresponding to a greater percentage of reclaimed water in drinking water production wells.

EDTA is not degraded or removed during conventional wastewater treatment. However, an adjustment of pH and sludge residence time can result in almost complete mineralization of EDTA. A variety of microorganisms have been isolated from water, soils, sediments and sludges that are able to completely mineralize EDTA as a sole source of carbon, nitrogen and energy.

Recalcitrant chelating agents such as EDTA are an environmental concern predominantly because of their persistence and strong metal chelating properties. The presence of chelating agents in high concentrations in wastewaters and surface waters has the potential to remobilize heavy metals from river sediments and treated sludges, although low and environmentally relevant concentrations seem to have only a very minor influence on metal solubility. Low concentrations of chelating agents may either stimulate or decrease plankton or algae growth, while high concentrations always inhibit activity. Chelating agents are nontoxic to many forms of life on acute exposure; the effects of longer-term low-level exposure are unknown. EDTA at elevated concentrations is toxic to bacteria due to chelation of metals in the outer membrane. EDTA ingestion at high concentrations by mammals changes excretion of metals and can affect cell membrane permeability.

Other more biodegradable chelators are effective and available. For example, EDDS (S, S'-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid) and NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid).


  • EDTA played a role in the O.J. Simpson trial when one of the blood samples collected from Simpson's estate was found to contain traces of the compound. This was used by the defense to indicate that the sample had been planted from one of the vials collected during the investigation. Prosecution claimed EDTA might have appeared in the sample as a result of eating McDonald's foods (either through bloodstream or, more likely, via contamination of blood flowing over the hand used in grabbing the food)[citation needed]."

--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia article on E.D.T.A.[ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid][edit]

in the above article,Uses in Medicine,Last entry is Use in Thalassemia Major to remove excess iron.Pl.indicate the reference of source i.e journal etc.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.195.147 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Copied from WP:RDS Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A red link of ....[edit]

Disodium edetate CAS no. [6381-92-6] has been added based on the following info http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Disodium+edetate+International+Pharmacopoeia+site%3Awww.who.int&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=fNPyysaHsgc --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://moldb.nihs.go.jp/jp/DetailList_en.aspx?submit=Detail(en)&keyword=Disodium+Edetate+Hydrate --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/aan/aanchem.pdf --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=E0399%7CSIAL&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


This chemical is used as a food additive in the one shown in the page of http://www.kewpie.com.cn/mayonnaise/product03.htm --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC) The company's webpage needs to be verified, as the company's address on the product label of mine is different to the one shown at their website.--222.64.218.82 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://product.cheminfo.gov.cn/C0217/C02170101.htm --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All the related names are confusing, especially for the food additives http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/monitoringandsurveillance/nuttab2006/onlineversionintroduction/onlineversion.cfm?&action=getFood&foodID=14B10088 --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://legislation.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/1043D26D116E5313CA2574A50017C5A4 --222.64.218.82 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

pKa values[edit]

I just edited the pKa values. Nevertheless, the values deserves a few comments: The two lower values (0.0 and 1.5) are concidered less reliable according to my source (Harris, D.C. "Quantitative Chemical Analysis", 7th ed., W. H. Freeman and Compagny, New York, 2007).
Another source (the Combined Chemical Directory 11.2, Taylor & Francis Group 2009) states the following values at 20 °C: 0.26; 0.96; 2.02; 2.66; 6.21 and 10.31 - all in 0.1 M KNO3.
CLHA (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bond-Line Formula[edit]

The bond-line formula shown in the png at the upper right is missing the central double bond. "Enthylene" implies a double bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.86.218 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe "ethylene" in the non-IUPAC name referes to ethane missing two H atoms. "Ethylene" is not used in the IUPAC name. Analogous: methylene chloride (dichloromethane, CH2Cl2) contains no double bound but has two H atoms less than methane.]CLHA (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ball-and-stick diagram[edit]

Didnt know where to put this question. Why does the current picture have dashes between the oxygens on two of the pairs but not on the other two pairs (out of the four pairs), or are they just not visible? also what do these dashes mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.80.160 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good observation. The ball-and-stick diagram does not show EDTA itself, but rather the dianion (two of the four carboxylic acid groups are depicted as carboxylate anions). I'll leave a note with the editor that created the image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, this is the exact structure as determined by X-ray crystallography. If you go to the image description page, you can see the reference.
This was a tricky image to make. Two of the four carboxyl groups are protonated, while the other two are deprotonated, having donated their protons to the basic amino nitrogen atoms.
One of the two undissociated carboxyl groups has a hydrogen atoms that is obscured by the rest of the molecule.
I'll make a Jmol for you guys to see what I mean, and I'll try and make an image in which you can see the hidden hydrogen atom.
Ben (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see the protons on nitrogen now. I didn't catch that. Thanks for the explanation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Section needs a rewrite[edit]

I noticed that this section appears to be one large quote from a text, and have moved it here until some who knows what this is about can rewrite it. A13ean (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

===IEX Ion Exchange Chromatography===
In the book from Amersham Biosciences/GE Healthcare, Ion Exchange Chromatography & Chromatofocusing - Principles and Methods, page50. "Metal chelators like EDTA & EGTA, are often used in buffers as metal chelators and can be used with IEX chromatography. EDTA and EGTA contain several carboxylic acids groups that may interact with anion exchangers. During anion exchange separations, EDTA and EGTA can concentrate as a band on the column and elute during a salt gradient. Both molecules absorb UV and will appear as a peak or as background noise in the chromatogram.

IUPAC name[edit]

2,2',2' ',2' ' '-(ethane-1,2-diylbis(azanetriyl))tetraacetic acid - ChemDraw shorter than that one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.130.174 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid → EDTA[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)



Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acidEDTA – Everyone who talks about this substance calls it EDTA (saying each letter), and no one uses its full name. It is always abbreviated only as EDTA. This very common substance is widely used in science and even known to people on the edge of science, and layman audiences would definitely call this EDTA. Since this substance is EDTA both when discussed verbally and when written, it should also be the title of its Wikipedia article. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)} Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose With special exceptions (water), articles on chemical compounds are titled in accord with chemical nomenclature. "EDTA" is only an abbreviation (the lay public would obviously prefer to call almost any chemical substance by an abbreviation rather than hazard pronunciation; this compound is not particularly known to the lay public); "EDTA" appropriately redirects to this article. There is no reason to change the title. Blacksun1942 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The statement "articles on chemical compounds are titled in accord with chemical nomenclature" is simply untrue. Many articles on chemicals are titled using common names, including abbreviations, and WP:MOSCHEM recommends using common names where appropriate (consistent with WP:COMMONNAME). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Understandable request but the problem is the definition of EDTA. Which anion, which salt, etc. While we seek to ensure that Wikipedia is approachable, that does not mean that we shield readers from a tiny bit of rigor in order to be clearcut. Also I cannot imagine how the article would be any easier for a non-technical reader if we change the title. --Smokefoot (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing what answers to such questions as "which anion", "which salt", etc., are provided by the full name "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid" but not by the acronym "EDTA"; both names refer to the same molecule. Therefore I don't see how the question you're raising is relevant to this move request. As for your second remark, it is the article content, not the article title, that does or doesn't make an article "[easy] for a non-technical reader"; therefore you seem to be missing the point. Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for the Wikipedia guidelines for choosing article titles. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. It appears to me that the opposing arguments presented above are contrary to well-established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See below:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. [emphasis added]

To suggest that the word "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic" is known even to a majority of English speakers who are familiar with the term "EDTA" is highly doubtful. To suggest that the title "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid" makes linking to this article no less "easy and second nature" than "EDTA" strains credulity; we cannot reasonably expect our readers to be familiar with the full chemical name, much less know how to spell it correctly.

Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject.... A useful test to determine what an abbreviation usually refers to can be done by checking abbreviations.com and finding the relative usage. If it is found that a particular subject is overwhelmingly denoted by an unambiguous acronym, the article title on that subject can be expressed as the acronym.

Checking the entry for EDTA at abbreviations.com (here) shows that the only expansion of more than trivial importance is the chemical substance that is the subject of this article.
  • Regarding the counterexample of LSD presented above: Acknowledged, but that title is arguably contrary to policy as well. In any case, there are numerous examples congruent with this proposal; see DNA, RNA, HIV, MDMA, and DDT. Furthermore, there are numerous other molecules and substances that would be similarly titled, but for the fact that their acronyms are shared with other commonly-known expansions, which makes it necessary for the acronyms go to a disambiguation page instead—but that is not the case with EDTA.
In sum, it appears to me that the only conclusion supported by Wikipedia policy in this case is to proceed with the move to "EDTA" as proposed. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • First, I recommend a slightly more nuanced and considerate way of dealing with colleagues. Other peoples' views are "flatly absurd", your preference is "only conclusion" and your edit note "the arguments against are silly". Some of us disagree, respectfully. As to my technical question, what is "EDTA"? That niggling question is part of the problem, at least for me.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: "nuanced and considerate" (@Smokefoot) — You're right, and I apologize for my earlier excessively strident tone. I've gone back and edited my remarks accordingly. — Jaydiem (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "EDTA" is completely opaque, likely to be confused with EDSA. The full title is immediately clear as an acid. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) Perhaps you could provide some evidence or explanation to support your claim that EDTA is "likely to be confused with EDSA"? (2) Although it's true that the full name of the EDTA molecule contains the word "acid", the same is true of RNA (ribonucleic acid) and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and yet in none of these cases does this provide any meaningful insight into the molecule's significance. Moreover, as with those other articles, the full expansion of the acronym is provided in the very first sentence of the article, so any benefit to be had from seeing it is certainly not impeded by using the acronym as the article title. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The page EDTA already redirects to the current page, which is the proper name of the compound. I can't think of one good reason why an acronym like "EDTA" should replace a proper chemical name. --IJBall (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: By proper name here I guess you mean the correct name rather than proper in the technical sense. But they are both correct in terms of WP:AT, which many, many notices asked you to read before contributing to an RM discussion. Your personal preference does matter, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that your argument simply boils down to this preference. Andrewa (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Hardly. The "scientific" name is the "correct" name. That is what the name of the article should be on Wikipedia. And that is aside from the strong disambiguation reasons for leaving this title as is. There is zero justification for a 'move' of this article, especially when one considers that EDTA already redirects here. --IJBall (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Three additional comments:
1) The one thing that we want the title to be is (relatively) unambiguous. Ambiguity is the problem here: "EDTA" means many things. For those supporting the title change, it probably means the fully deprotonated species EDTA4- which is rarely observed but its the component that often binds to metals. The form "EDTA" is often sold as are various salts of H2EDTA2-, say Na2H2EDTA or CaH2EDTA or Na4EDTA. These are the salts one adds to sequester metal ions (often binding as HEDTA-). Or maybe people intend the corresponding anions H2EDTA2- or EDTA4- (most Wiki-chem articles are on compounds, but some are on ions). Or maybe it means the tetraacid (which technologists usually write H4EDTA) My point is that the current title and name are unambiguous. For EDTA as the title, one would almost need to add the phrase "you know what we mean - its that stuff that somehow binds metals in various forms".
2 )In contrast LSD is unambiguous - it means only one compound, not its conjugate acids or bases or ions.
3) It is also very likely that someone will write an article on these other derivatives of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, then editors will find themselves in the same quandry - do we call that article EDTA (it would be closer in meaning to what non-technical people probably think is "EDTA". --Smokefoot (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.