From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals / Core  (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.
Taskforce icon
This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
WikiProject Medicine / Toxicology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (marked as Low-importance).


This stub says automotive applications began in 1995, however, my vehicle is a MY 1994, and uses R-134a. I'm pretty sure all American manufacturers started using it then.

It was actually used as early as 1993 in some vehicles. It was not EPA required until 1995 model year. So, switching before 1995, they didn't have to rush it. :) I will fix it. --Phroziac (talk) 15:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page needs to be expanded. So far, however, it is a decent article. --The1exile 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the page more and more.Stone 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Following from Roundrupert: I liked this article. The author is obviously gifted. It helped me very much in suceeding. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundrupert (talkcontribs) 23:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

2 images in table...[edit]

Do we really need two, for smaller screens it would really crush the top layout. Advice anyone? --Ryan Jones 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that myself, but there isn't really any other way at the moment, other than removing one. I already removed the dupont can picture for this reason. When the article is longer, one picture could be moved down.--Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

nomenclature|stereochemistry|3D image, etc.[edit]

It may be of interest to note that this is an example of a compound for which the non-systematic name: tetrafluoroethane (without the numbers) is sufficient (but not an acceptable IUPAC name) to designate the structure, since there are no isomers (neither positional, nor stereoscopic).

Wrong! 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane are isomers and different and have both the name tetrafluoroethane!--Stone 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it especially interesting that the compound has no entry at all in the 1989 Merck Index. Just goes to show ya what a huge market for something with so many potential unknown side effects can be created overnight by chicken little tactics! Zaphraud (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Decomposition at elevated temperatures?[edit]

The article states "Contact of tetrafluoroethane with open flames or hot surfaces (in excess of around 120°F or 50°C) may cause vapor decomposition and the emission of toxic gases". Is there a reference to support the 120°F hot surface claim? It doesn't seem right to me since R134a refrigeration cycles routinely run at temperatures well in excess of 200°F without any refrigerant degradation. As a point of reference, the DuPont MSDS, 

only says that decomposition will happen through "high temperatures (open flames or glowing metal)" and the Honeywell MSDS for Genetron 134aUV,

says it can happen at 250°C. I'll revise the article to say 250°C unless someone can find a reference for a lower temperature.

Zugmeister 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GWP Rating[edit]

The GWP rating listed in the history subsection does not have a time associated with it. The link to GWP specifically states that a GWP number is meaningless without a time frame. Any chance of correcting this?

The GWP rating in this article is also slightly different to the rating in the data page. The one on the data page does have a time associated with it though, so I would assume it is the more accurate value but this will have to be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reported GWP of 1300 from the cited table is for a 100-yr timeframe, but this is an old estimate. In each IPCC climate report and WMO ozone assessment report these values are updated... the latest IPCC (from 2007) gives the 100-yr GWP as 1430, so I'll revise the page and add a new reference. (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that someone has put the 1300 rating back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Cause of asphyxiation?[edit]

However, its gaseous form is denser than air, and will displace air in the lungs. This can result in asphyxiation if excessively inhaled.

I've seen this a few times before. It doesn't seem right that a gas could "settle" in the lungs in the manner proposed, not in a breathing subject anyway. I'd assume it was simply from displacement of oxygen, or perhaps breathing a settled escaped gas (for example in a basement). I don't have access to the references, so can anyone verify this? --Adx (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it "settles" so much as it just takes up space that would otherwise be used for air. Even holding your breath or breathing the same bag over and over will have enough Oxygen and Co2 in it to keep your brain and your breathing reflex going but when you completely displace breathable air, co2 included, with another gas you wind up not triggering your breathing reflex. -Superslash —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The same happens with bromine gas, when inhaled for humorous purposes (makes your voice lower), you literally must hang upside down for about 30 seconds to let the gas flow out of your lungs, even after a few seconds of screwing around with its voice effects you will feel light-headed and such (I have experienced it). (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Bromine gas is extremely irritating, and you could DIE from doing what this moron claims to have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
the denser than air stuff is crap. We'd all suffocate from excess CO2 if that played any role. Also the claim that asphyxiation causes most deaths is bullocks, it's sudden sniffing death, probably due to heart arrhythmias, more than 50% of cases involve propane. (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Boiling point[edit]

The boiling point is clearly listed in the infobox as -26.3°C, yet the caption of the photo says it boils at room temperature (68-72°F). Under normal atmospheric pressure, this is not correct. If the photo shows 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane under higher pressure than normal atmosphere, the caption should state so. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It does boil at room temperature in the same sense that liquid nitrogen boils at room temperature. Perhaps it could be worded more clearly. --Itub (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two very different tetrafluoroethanes[edit]

I corrected the instances of the word "Tetrafluoroethane" to the unambiguous "1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane" to disambiguate it from the other isomer, 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane, aka R-134, which has different properties, is not a common refrigerant, and is toxic.

If you were reading an article about the 6th president of the US, it would probably be best to repeatedly refer to him as John Quincy Adams to disambiguate him from the other president named Adams. This is no different.--Bodybagger (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

except in an article about John Quincy Adams where the paragraph is clear about who is mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Boiling in a Vacuum[edit]

I work in air conditioning industry, and when R134a is boiled in -20 in-Hg vacuum the "ice" gets well below -35*F. That is the limit of the probes i have used to check the temp of the canisters before i disconnect them to allow them to warm to recover the rest of R134a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

efforts to phase out R-134a[edit]

Please add more content about efforts to phase out R-134a. - (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Olympic performance ? Bullshit right ?[edit]

Right now the article mentions

"The change from inert chlorofluorocarbon / Freon propellant to HFAs occurred in the late 1990s, and coincided with the fact that "Asthmatic athletes have consistently outperformed healthy athletes in every Olympic games since 2000"."

That has got to be bullshit. (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)