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


The pKa value given is far too low; unless you can cite a very recent source, it's generally accepted that acetaldehyde has a pKa value of 17 in water. See for example Anslyn & Dougherty, Modern Physical Organic Chemistry, p. 276. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the Acetaldehyd dehydrogenase mutation leads to higher alcoholism rates in native american's. It is directly contradicted by the reference given (which states that native american's don't have make sense: if you immediately puke every time you drink, obviously you won't become an alcoholic.

The higher alcohlism rates in native americans probably has something to do with alcohol dehydrogenae mutations. AxelBoldt 20:12 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Some persons from far-Eastern descent" is PC terminology that only makes sense in the context of talking about members of American society. It is absurd to talk about "persons from far-Eastern descent" for someone in the Far East who always has and still is living there. How about some terminology that is more international and less America-centric?

- I would tend to disagree with the comment immediately above: the people referred to as being, of "far-eastern descent" are asians. asia is closer to the west of the united states than the east. An "america-centric" person, should, in reality, call them people of the close west. This is why the term "far-eastern" is known as being eurocentric, and not "america-centric". Furthermore, asia is on the eastern end of the eurasian continent, a side that even they consider as being "eastern". As a result, asians from the "far-east" call europeans "westerners". It's therefore stupid to be insulted by being called an "easterner". Now i'm not one to typically stand up for "america-centric" values, in fact i spend more time complaining about them, but attacking somebody for being "america-centric" when america has NOTHING to do with the term "far-eastern", (a term which, mind you, pre-dates european settlement of the american continent) is pathetic. Excuse me for being un-pc in defending what you define as being "PC terminoligy". ANYWAY, I would also support the changing of this term to "east-asian" perhaps, rather than "far-eastern". Though i'd call the term in question simplistic rather than "america-centric" or "pc-terminology". 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The terminiology used in the medical literature is "east-asian" or "eastern-asian" and I would support using these terms rather than others. For instance, see A Global Perspective on Genetic Variation at the ADH Genes .... --Elplatt 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

L-glutamine does not contain a thiol group[edit]

"L-Cysteine and L-glutamine, which each contain a thiol group, can force conversion back into ethanol, to similar effect."

Should there be something else instead of L-glutamine? Sampo Tiensuu 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Methionine perhaps? It is the only other amino acid with sulphur in it if I remember correctly. Arkos vahamaki (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend a change from acetaldehyde to ethanal[edit]

The IUPAC name for the chemical is ethanal, but it has been acetaldehyde for some time. I feel that it should be named according to the IUPAC method for naming chemicals.

Tyler 23:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • In fact, the page is correctly named according to current IUPAC recommendations: see R-5.6.1. Ethanal is an alternative name for the same compound, but acetaldehyde is preferred. Physchim62 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the reccomendation; The IUPAC name is ethanal, and IUPAC uses that as its recommended name for all examination boards and schools. Furthermore, if you reference the IUPAC website, any reference made to acetaldehyde is placed in brackets.

--Phil 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except schools uses the name acetaldehyde. Physchim is correct - ethanal is only really used as an alternative. I searched Google for how many times ethanal and acetaldehyde are each mentioned on - ethanal is mentioned 9 times, acetaldehyde 98 times. And not in brackets. So the wiki article's name should remain acetaldehyde.
Ben 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

See also [1]. Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i feel that this is incorrect. For a start, the wikipedian article on IUPAC organic nomenclature specifically says 'acetaldeyde is named ethanal.' If the systematic name is stated as acetaldehyde here then this is a discrepancy between the two pages.


Additionally, the acdlabs link provided is very rare, and i can find many other links refering to it as ethanal. It is common knowledge that the form, acet etc. names are old fashioned and are not part of the iupac nomenclature system. The reason that the system was invented was to create order, hence the use of common prefixes: meth, eth, prop etc. Although clearly not the most popular name, the systematic name is clearly ethanal and thus should be written as the systematic name.

Also See:

[2] [3] [4]

--Javsav 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What some people seem to be misunderstanding here is that the ACD Labs link is an online copy of IUPAC's Blue Book (A Guide to IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Compounds (Recommendations 1993)). Therefore it is an authoritative source of information on IUPAC nomenclature.
There is no doubt that Physchim is correct that IUPAC prefers acetaldehyde. He is a professional chemist and fully understands this issue. The other editors who are calling for the article to be renamed ethanal appear to be school students, who are learning the basis of systematic nomenclature and have therefore been introduced to the name ethanal.
I searched Google for ethanal (about 105,000 hits) and acetaldehyde (about 1,860,000 hits). Therefore, according to Google, acetaldhyde is about 18 times more commonly used than ethanal. This itself is quite compelling evidence to maintain the article's name as acetaldehyde.
If supporters of the name ethanal are adamant the article must change, I would very much encourage them to visit the WikiProject on Chemicals and make their views known there, rather than continually reverting this article.
Obviously, no hard feelings to you all. I just want to see IUPAC recommendations followed.
Ben 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

No hard feelings to you either, high and mighty university student (despite the fact that I'm doing IB HL chem). You do know that the names are denoted 'systematic' for a reason don't you? Because they follow a SYSTEM. Yes. A system. 'acet' is not part of this system. I'll leave my comment unindented because I'm only a high school student.

Javsav 06:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings to you all! But the styleguide seems pretty clear to me, the name that most English speaking users would recognise as the most used name should be used as the article title (and if the original author named it acetaldehyde, than that is the name that the article should have). If we follow systematic naming, testosterone would be impossible to find .. oh wait, that's why there are redirects to where the actual data is (sorry for the cynical tone). What I mean is, I am not in favour of namechanges because of 'following a system', I would only warrant namechanges if there are mistakes in the name originally chosen (i.e. spelling and such), when subjects from different disciplines start to have problems about the same title, and maybe when two names are used which are quite close in count (then a namechange to the systematic name is warranted).
This dispute is coming up every now and then on different pages, I am still in favour of the recommendation to put this subject (systematic -, trivial -, and commercial names) into a single page, and use a template to redirect to that page, so that these renaming discussions can be taken to one point in the Wikipedia, see here).
About Google-counts. Google counts links, if there is one important, good document with the name acetaldehyde, where millions of pages link to, it may not be the most-used name, though it would get a high google-count. Please, stop using them in arguments (eventhough in this case I guess there is a bias for acetaldehyde, difference is quite impressive). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't get wound up, Javsav! This isn't top trumps - I'm honestly not saying "do what I say because I'm one rung above you in education", that would be arrogant. No-one asks to see your qualifications to allow you to edit WP - you just have to be correct! I understand your argument, I really do. In fact I teach A-level chemistry at the moment, so I'm well aware of how it seems when you're studying a course that regards systematic names as king. When I was doing my A-level chemistry two years ago, I preferred ethanal.
The problem is that A-levels and IB deliberately ignore the finer points of the IUPAC system, namely that many compounds' systematic names are discarded in favour of trivial ones. They do this for two reasons: firstly, to avoid overburdening students with facts they must memorize; and secondly, so that they can ask exam questions on systematic nomenclature. Physchim's link is an IUPAC document. The fact that it is on ACD Labs website is irrelevant. It is an online copy of the bible of organic nomenclature, written by the people who invented systematic nomenclature as we know it. If you consider ethanal to be part of the system and acetaldehyde not, then IUPAC are saying "ignore the system for a moment, we have decided acetaldehyde is to be used".
Quoting an article on Wikipedia is not an acceptable source - the organic nomenclature article should be updated to say that despite the system, many compounds should only be referred to by their trivial names.
The long and the short of the comment is that ethanal is not what most people think of when they see CH3CHO, so let's not get any grandiose ideas about the need to subject the whole of Wikipedia to "the system". I feel that what Javsav is proposing is a chemical form of hypercorrection (meaning number 2).
Ben 11:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC).
A-Levels and GCSEs don't (or did not) exclusively use systematic names, but recognise that there a number of compounds for which it is acceptable to use the trivial names. Further, I have never found it a problem to use the systematic names, where they are not cumbersome or impractical, at university. I have found it perfectly acceptable to use ethanal rather than acetaldehyde, methanal rather than formaldehyde etc. It would of course be quite another matter to use half a page to write out the systematic name of a hormone, but no-one seriously suggests that. Personally I prefer to use the systematic names where practical, especially where they are less cumbersome than the trivial ones. For many compounds of course the systematic name has become more common than the trivial one eg ethanol rather than acetyl alcohol, propanal rather than propionaldehyde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the form, acet, proprion, butyr, val blah blah series are systematic. Not the same system as Me, Et, Pr, Bu, etc., but they are consistent. I personally think that it is a really dumb idea to use the systematic nomenclature in school exclusively because when students go to university, they take so long to adapt. Rather, they could learn the rule for what it is, and just get used to the common names which are used (very often with the IUPAC's blessing as well). --Rifleman 82 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are systematic, but only those up to butyr... have IUPAC blessing. Acetaldehyde is the IUPAC preferred name, despite what some educational authorities think. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i support a change to ethanal, and the first sentance should say also "known as acetaldehyde". ethanal is the systematic name for the compound, therefore it is easy to see how it is related to similar compounds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Oh, please no change to ethanal. I realize that many would-be editors are striving to be strident about something. Chemists in the real world - and those that contribute the most content to WE - do not use the term ethanoic acid or ethanal or hydroxyethane. IMHO.--Smokefoot 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

First rename morphine to its reall IUPAC name! Nobody would suggest this, because the use of old used names makes it easier to work. IPAC knows this and encourages the use of stupid names like benzaldehyde, terephtalic acid and oxalic acid instead of the systematic names!--Stone 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


"smoking." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 25 Feb. 2006 <> says:

"Other constituents, such as acetaldehyde, have addictive effects of their own. Cigarettes, therefore, are much more addicting than nicotine medications..."

So I added a bit about that. Nonenmac 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

did the EB cite any sources for that? If not, it just sounds like typical, biased, anti-tobacco rhetoric. Ideally, wikipedia is better than the EB. Let's remember this is an article about acetaldehyde. --Kvuo 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The free version doesn't show any citations. Also, this sentence makes no sense: "Acetaldehyde is an air pollutant resulting from combustion, such as automotive exhaust and tobacco smoke, contributing to the addictive properties of tobacco" Why not just say "...tobacco smoke. Evidence exists that suggests Acetaldehyde itself may have addictive properties." and just reference that EB article? 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for US production of acetaldehyde[edit]

A possible citation would be Weissermel, Klaus & Arpe Hans-Jürgen (2003). Industrial Organic Chemistry, Fourth Edition. (p 166). New York: Wiley-VCH. [5]

Ehnebuske 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy N-ID9[edit]

Is this a real galaxy? All google searches for it point back to this article. I see the print source cited, but don't have the ability to check it.-- 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a bogus citation, the publication has nothing to do with it. I have cleaned it up here and under ethenol. Сасусlе 21:03, 13 October 2007 (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) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Its production was made by reaction of acetylene (C2H2) and water (H2O), in the presence of mercury salts:

C2H2 + H2O -------->H3C-C=O

                        \O or C2H4O(Acetaldehyde)      Agre22 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)agre22


Prop 65's listing is notable in and of itself and is published on California's state government website. KeepCalm: I suggest that you bring this matter up on an appropriate Wikipedia forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Role in ethanol's psychoactive action[edit] Ethanol metabolises to ethanal and there is some evidence pointing in the direction of ethanal being the main cause of psychoactivity in alcohol, mainly that the lack of the gene facilitating ethanal breakdown(which most Asians lack) increases "drunkedness". Arkos vahamaki (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That work seems interesting, but Wikipedia does not seek primary journal references. See WP:secondary. We're not a science or news blog, supposedly.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Element Me?[edit]

The first line of the article says "Acetaldehyde (systematically ethanal) is an organic chemical compound with the formula CH3CHO or MeCHO." What is the element Me? Ndanielm (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not an element, it is a Methyl (-CH3) group. (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


the image for tautomerization is grossly misleading, this is almost certainly a solvent assisted (or in the case of the pure substance, a multi-step, polymolecular) process. (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Acetaldehyde is not pungent in real life[edit]

Acetaldehyde is not pungent in real life, reference Merck Chemical Index. (At least no more so than pure ethanol vapor, acetaldehyde boils at RTP.) An experience that sticks with me is working in a Lab (in California, a warm climate) and having Acetaldehyde (liquid) in a large beaker on my left and a fume hood on my right. Acetaldehyde has a low heat of evaporation (e.g. ether) and boils at about room temperature. I noticed a mild smell faintly like ether or ethyl alcohol. About 300ml of Acetaldehyde had evaporated when I next looked at it, and I had a splitting headache reminiscent of a hangover. At college, UCSB, we (human volunteers) tested a pyrazole alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor yielding a longer period of action for alcohol intoxication and no "hangover". See Ethanol metabolism also. Trying to find a reference re Aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) inhibited by Ethanol causing buildup of Acetaldehyde. Shjacks45 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not pungent according to the article either. So, you're point is what exactly? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Acetaldehyde[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Acetaldehyde's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NIOSH":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


removed the link to "muscle" from "abnormal muscle development", because in the linked article there's no mention of acetaldehyde.

also worth of consideation whether the section about carcinogenity is the right place for discussion of abnormal muscle developement. (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Acetaldehyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Off Flavor in Beer[edit]

Acetaldehyde is given off by yeast during the fermentation stage of beer production and may remain in the beer if not properly fermented. It's noted for giving a green apple taste and is considered an off flavor in most kinds of beer. Maybe this might be worth including in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)