Talk:Pyroligneous acid

Mokusaku

Mokusaku seems to be a brand name, or potentionally an anglified version of the Japanese name for wood tar. In both cases I can't see why it should be included. --Tunheim 12:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

medicinal / food use?!

Yikes - surely putting anything containing methanol into your body is a bad idea, in any significant amount? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The content pertaining to medical use was dubious at best, so I removed it. Pyroligneous acid may be used as a fragrance or food additive for flavoring though (link). I suppose it is used in very small amounts for this purpose and a little methanol will do no harm. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge

 Disagree The parent of the commercial term "liquid smoke" is actually the natural generic term pyroligneous acid. In sum, the pages should not be merged because the titles indicate the different purposes of the pages. Liquid smoke is a branded term or art and not a term of chemistry. Brands should be a branches or child page of the general page. That said, the liquid smoke article actually has the better and more accurate description of the origins, chemistry, process, and uses of the acid. I'd suggest using the excellent descriptions of the chemistry and process to improve the substandard pyroligneous page, and refer the liquid smoke page to that parent. By the way, I came across this term in the audiobook I'm recording from 1872, where mountaineers discussed the expression (and stink) of pyroligneous acid from a campfire they surrounded. "Liquid smoke" did not exist then. They called it "pyroligenous acid" which was used as a "mild stimulant" and was an "ill-savored gas" to standers-by.Melaniemccalmont (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 DisagreeI don't think they should be merged as Liquid smoke is made and extract from Pyroligneous acid. They are similar, but different things. --TX55^TALK 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger of pyroligneous acid and liquid smoke

I am prepared to merge pyroligneous acid and liquid smoke. Here is the historical section that is nearly ready to go. The origins are so common that there is no good reason to distinguish between the two. I work for Red Arrow, but this is about as unbiased as I can make this up to this point. I'll wait for a while to see if there is feedback and I have others reviewing this before it loads.

Historical

The pyrolysis or thermal decomposition of wood originated pre-historically to produce charcoal [charcoal]. Condensates of the vapors were eventually made and found use as preservatives. The term wood vinegar was the popular term used to describe the water based condensates. Presumably this is due to its common use as food vinegar. Numerous references exist that confirm wood vinegar has been used as food vinegar throughout history. Pliny the Elder [Pliny] recorded in one of his ten volumes of natural history works [Naturalis Historiae] the use of wood vinegar as an embalming agent, declaring it superior to other treatments he used. Widely recognized as the father of chemical engineering and another good naturalist documentor, Johann Glauber [Johann Rudolph Glauber] described in Miraculum Mundi 1 the production of wood vinegar during charcoal making. Further, he describes the use of the water insoluble tar fraction as a wood preservative and documents the freeze condensation of the wood vinegar to concentrate it. An English translation summary is found here. 2 The origin of the term pyroligneous acid is a French derivation. The first known use is 17883. In the United States, the commercial era of pyroligneous acid use and the term liquid smoke that subsumed pyroligneous acid began with E.H.Wright in 1895. Among Wright’s innovations were the standardization of the product, marketing and distribution. Even today modern successors to Wright’s are the subject of controversy about what they are and how they are made. But in 1913 Wright, et.al prevailed in a federal misbranding case. Case judge Van Valkenburg wrote:

[quote picture here did not tansfer, will type later]

Historically pyroligneous acid products, Wright’s product and many other condensates have been made as byproducts of charcoal manufacturing. Chemicals such as methanol, acetone and acetic acid have been subsequently isolated and sold from these products over the years. But with the advent of lower cost fossil sources, today these wood derived chemicals retain only small niches. It was in 1959 that the era of modern condensed smoke based products began with the establishment of Red Arrow Products Company in Manitowoc Wisconsin. The important difference marking this era from the past is production of modern condensates for their own use rather than as a byproduct of charcoal production. Today there are several manufacturing locations around the world, most of which pyrolyzed wood primarily to generate condensates that are further processed to make hundreds of formulas of products which are now referred to less so as liquid smoke products rather as smoke flavourings, smoke flavors, and condensed natural smokes.Gsmoke (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Miraculum Mundi, oder Außführliche Beschreibung der wunderbaren Natur/ Art/ vnd Eigenschafft/ deß Großmächtigen Subiecti: Von den Alten Menstruum Vniversale oder Mercurius Philosophorum genandt. . - an Tag geben/ vnd jetzo auff das newe corrigiret vnd verbesert Durch Iohann Rudolph Glaubern, 7 vols. 1653-1658
2. Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editons of the Encyclopædia Britannica. With Preliminary Dissertations on the History of the Sciences. Ilustrated by Engravings. Volume First [- Sixth], Volume 3 Page 14.
3. Merriam-Webster
4. Case Number 2828. Alleged misbranding of liquid smoke. U.S.v.E.H.Wright. F.&D.No 3410.I.S.No 14393-c. [1]

Gsmoke (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sharing common history may not necessarily mean they are the same thing. "Liquid Smoke" is a flavour, and usually/preferably made from birch. Pyroligneous acid is an umbrella term, can refer to those created from destructive distillation of wood and other plant materials and it can be used in other purpose. --TX55^TALK 06:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Liquid smoke is not made from birch. It can be made from any wood. There is no preference. There is great variety. The chronological order of terms is wood vinegar>pyroligneous acid>liquid smoke. Wood vinegar lasted 1500 years, pyroligneous acid 250 years, since 1895 liquid smoke. There is no discriminator in processes or composition to define differences between the terms. So without a logical refutation they have to be the same. All are destructive distillation, no oxygen, otherwise you have combustion.

Let me know if you want more proof or arguments.This is my field. I'll keep posting.Gsmoke (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, though the two are made from similar or same process, the page Liquid smoke is for the flavour, while the page Pyroligneous acid is for a much general/wider substance, which can be processed into different products, such as bug repellent, fertilizer enhancer, and others. This is similar to the page Activated charcoal, a raw material or ingredient, which can made into Activated charcoal (medication). --TX55^TALK 14:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem.You are using Wikipedia information to define the difference based on usage. But the process and composition of the products is common and in some cases identical. There is no analysis that can be done to discriminate between the two. So my draft shows the lineage and the point in history when a federal court decision agreed that they were the same. The arguments about process, composition and court decision far outweigh the usage as the rationale for keeping the pyroligneous acid page. What I will probably do is just post the new Liquid Smoke page and let the pyroligneous acid page stand as it is. It will be nearly obsolete.Gsmoke (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what we call an article is all about usage, not about processes and court decisions. That's why, for example, our article on Bill Clinton isn't titled "William Jefferson Clinton", which is the most precise and legal name of the subject. We have a guideline, abbreviated WP:COMMONNAME, which advises that any Wikipedia article should be titled according to how the subject is most commonly known. If "pyroligneous acid" is the generic name of a substance that can be processed into more specific products, then it is acceptable to have one article about the general substance and another article about the product, if that product meets notability criteria for inclusion.

An example would be steviol glycoside as the generic substance, rebaudioside A as a specific steviol glycoside, Rebiana as the trade name, and Truvia as a specific product made from it. All are separate articles, and they all have appropriate wikilinks so that users can navigate to other articles as needed. A user interested in Truvia won't necessarily be interested in those other articles, and vice versa.

Another option is to expand this article to include information about specific products, and create redirect links to it, so anyone searching for "liquid smoke" will land on this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anachronist for the further explaination with detail! This is exactly the point I tried to indicate. :D --TX55^TALK 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the best option is for me to edit liquid smoke which includes pyroligneous acid references and history and leave pyroligneous acid. There is no difference between the two chemically. The western world doesn't use the term and the usage of liquid smoke for reasons other than food is non-existent. The last use of it as table vinegar I hear about was in Spain 20 years ago. In Australian and Asia and probably other continents they are using it for all sorts of things only some of which has any science referenced. That way some champion of pyrogineous acid can take on that challenge if they want.75.146.175.113 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)