Talk:Tetrachloroethylene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 

Dating of historical pollution[edit]

cf. the Chapter "Environmental contamination", cf. "Partial degradation daughter products include trichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride; full degradation converts tetrachloroethylene to ethene and hydrogen chloride dissolved in water." This can be used to date a historical pollution. The degradation from tetra to tri to di takes several years. The one who can find a link, pls integrate in the article and remove this talk chapter? --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Boiling point[edit]

According to the U.S. EPA and Dow Chemical MSDS the BP is 121.1 C. not the 147 value previously claimed. I do not know which value actually corresponds to ultra-pure 1,1,2,2 tetracholor ethylene at STP (if either) but I'd go with 121C

A quick look indicates that most sources seem inclined to agree with the 121.1°C figure. -- Grunt 14:34, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Molecular weight - error ?[edit]

MW shown as 131.4 amu looks wrong. Should be 165.83 I think. user jpl

147 value it is. When it reach 154 we talk serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.34.117 (talkcontribs)

Possible schizophrenia risk factor[edit]

"Tetrachloroethylene exposure and risk of schizophrenia: offspring of dry cleaners in a population birth cohort, preliminary findings." (PMID 17113267). Population sample is big, but the results are not replicated by another study yet. Would it be pertinent to add this to the article? Also look here: Dry Cleaning Chemical Linked to Increased Schizophrenia Risk. Best regards, CopperKettle 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. I remember that zoots.com has a study on their website about the problems with perc. Good article up to now. -M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.99.226 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PCE isn't TCE[edit]

"Tetrachloroethylene contamination was used as a plot focus in a story arc of the TV show Ghostwriter. Its health risks are also discussed in A Civil Action, which involves a Woburn, Massachusetts, lawsuit where a cluster of leukemia developed, arguably due to high perc levels. It has been featured in an episode of Stargate SG1."


This is in the wrong place. Trichloroethylene was found in the Woburn water (TCE), not tetrachloroethylene. I'm getting rid of it. CaTigeReptile 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


The statement is partially correct and partially incorrect, but the decision was wrong. Both TCE and PCE were found in the Woburn water. If you find PCE in soil or groundwater, you will typically also find its breakdown products, TCE, DCE, and VC (Vinyl Chloride).
This statement is also partially correct. If you do find PCE in soil or groundwater the formation of breakdown products is strongly dependent on having reducing conditions and a carbon source. In the absence of either, PCE can be stable and persistent.Grey poupon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article insist on using the outdated nomenclature?[edit]

It should be revised to consistently use the IUPAC name of tetrachloroethene, with all of the other names listed among the "other names" sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.15 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP has a guidance document for naming chemical compounds, and it addresses this issue here. Does IUPAC recommend the use of a non-systemic name for this compound? If so, we should follow it rather than simply using the raw IUPAC name. Until someone verifies whether IUPAC has made such a recommendation, let's stick with tetrachloroethylene. Bry9000 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have searched the site at http://www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/#search for this compound, and I haven't found anything. It thus appears that IUPAC does not, in fact, recommend a non-systemic name for this compound, as it is not listed in their guidance document. I have therefore moved the article to tetrachloroethene. Bry9000 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not we should move the article back to tetrachloroethylene or not, but the general rule of most common name should be used: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#General rule. Is tetrachloroethene really more commonly used than tetrachloroethylene?

Google searches aren't perfect, but here are the results for reference:

"tetrachloroethene": 232,000 hits
"tetrachloroethylene": 419,000 hits

There's no need to use the IUPAC name if another name is more common. But before I move the article back, I'd like to see further evidence that tetrachloroethylene is the more better name for the article here in WP.

Ben (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, for consistency, we should use tetrachloroethylene throughout the article and replace tetrachloroethene wherever it is still used.

Andreorban (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Natural dry cleaning?[edit]

Now that perchloroethylene (or whatever you call it) is being phased out of the dry cleaning industry because people apparently don't like getting cancer and Parkinson's disease,[1] I've noticed that many dry cleaning stores are advertising "Natural Dry Cleaning". I've asked the employees about it about three times over as many years. All I can find out is that they use a different chemical, but they do not know what it is or why it is "natural". I've got other stuff to do, so I'm hoping someone will do some detective work and add this important development to this article. David Spector (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)