Talk:Methyl isobutyl ketone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chemicals / Core  (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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 Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Carbon numbering incorrect[edit]

After seeing the erroneous systematic name "2-methylpentan-4-one", I do have to agree with Sbard. Carbon chain is numbered with lowest number(s) closest to highest priority functional group (the ketone carbonyl, in this instance); methyl substituents are subordinate groups.

As for the "evil pollutant" rant herein, MIBK has been and continues to be widely used as a paint solvent, and no "evil" effects have been forthcoming, or else we'd all be dropping dead from the poisoning thereof. Leave the alarmist rhetoric where it belongs, please—in utter silence. Irishchieftain 01:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the name WAS correct when I did the rewrite, (see [this version), but someone had switched it without me noticing. Regarding the alarmist rhetoric, are you referring to the CS gas reference? (Believe me, the article was much worse when Sbard commented!). I think I will add this article to my ToDo list, and I'll try and add some plain old content to this. Can you help with this, too? Thanks, Walkerma 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From PNA/Chemicals[edit]

  • Methyl isobutyl ketone NPOV as well as numerous factual errors. Could use someone with experience in formatting chemical pages to give it a proper treatment. Probably needs to be rewritten from scratch. Sbard 21:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Evil pollutant![edit]

A pollutant that the government wants added to ethanol alcohol to prevent it from being used as a beverage, but only as a vehicle fuel instead. In the event of ground water contamination, as in the case of MTBE added to gasoline by government order, the State and Federal governments reject all responsibility for the future ground water contamination by Methyl isobutyl ketone and insist that it is the fault of ethanol fuel corporations. Even though these corporations do not want to add Methyl isobutyl ketone to ethanol fuel, but are being forced by the State and Federal government on threat of fine or jail time. The tv news media says they will not inform the American people of these criminal actions by the State and Federal government politicians and government employees. Posted by User:65.148.10.93

Yes, I can see that all Governments and their employees are criminals. Your comment smacks as typical paranoia fromt the anti-Government brigade. Have you got any real evidence of this? If so, present it rather than ranting. And perhaps you may wish to note that other countries have State and Federal governments and not just the USA. So your rant is even more incomprehensible. Aussie Alchemist 03:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rite Aid Ethyl Rubbing Alcohol[edit]

I bought a bottle of that stuff, and can you believe they had acetone, denatonium benzoate, AND methyl isobutyl ketone? You only need one of those to make it undrinkable, yet they loaded it with all three. Is that even safe to put on the skin? I usually put salicylic acid in a bottle of alcohol and use it as an astringent, but this stuff was like the ultimate solvent for it. Was much more acidic than normal, as if all the acid powder become totally dissolved. Way too strong. Is that normal for ketone and acetone? Are they far better solvents than isopropyl alcohol or diluted ethanol? Is this a common chemical to spike rubbing alcohol with, now? 66.178.144.154 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that acetone and methyl isobutyl ketone are added not to make it undrinkable, but rather to make it better at doing things people commonly use it for, such as removing nail polish. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Polarity statement is incorrect[edit]

The "Solvent and niche applications" states that "It has a similar polarity to ethyl acetate,..." which is not correct.

This article states for MIBK Dipole Moment 4.2 Debye.

The Wikipedia article on ethyl acetate (which is linked) gives a value of 1.78 D.

On a scale of ~0-11, these values are not similar.

Since neither value has a reference listed, I will have to wait until I can cross-check a chemistry textbook before making changes to the value or the statement, unless someone else can do this before me.

ScottHW (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Great catch and I look forward to your updating the article. I probably wrote the offending comment. Polarity is not the same as dipole moment, at least to bench chemists, so maybe we should explain/correct the comment/context or just delete the offending statement. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)