Talk:Chlorine dioxide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

alternative medicine links[edit]

Can who watches this page make sure that the following links don't re-appear?

They were there, they're links to quack miracle cure applications involving chlorine dioxide. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

I have included a positive paragraph below on this subjectWisetalk (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone heard of Drinking Chlorine Dioxide?[edit]

Recently I have been drinking chlorine dioxide as an internal cleanse. Check out the website that sells the stuff they have information on it Tell me what you think about this. It sounds weird at first but the more I have looked into it the more it makes sense.

I'm looking on more information on this as well and am having trouble other than that website. There is a book, which makes some pretty amazing claims, such as it being a cure for malaria. Anyone know of any actual peer-reviewed medical studies? -- (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC) as well. not sure of the validity of any of this. Aaronwinborn (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The chemistry in the book mentioned on the above website is appalling, with too many errors to list. It continuously refers to the "chlorine dioxide ion" and is meant to sound technical to the uninformed reader. The author claims to have found new chemistry, while in fact it is described in the main article in the subsection on "Stabilized chlorine dioxide". One of the claims is that the sodium chlorite solution (the key to the whole idea) must be mixed with an acidic substance like acetic or citric acid before drinking, ignoring the fact that stomach acid is many time more acidic than either lemon juice or vinegar. A further tip-off to the validity of the book is the statement that "Our leaders are trying to kill us" by suppressing health information and that many diseases come from Government labs (see Conspiracy theories). One thing to remember about miracle cures: if its too good to be true, it probably isn't. Silverchemist (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a chemist just someone who has followed health my whole life. After a lot of reading about MMS it made logical sense to me that if all pathogens(viruses bacteria parasites germs molds or other micro organisms)are killed in the enviroment and you can also drink this under a safe protocol it should work internally. (After all MMS is water purification drops which are used all over the world by the army etc.)I started drinking MMS for health benefits using the correct protocol (you cannot just drink it from the bottle) and my artritis in my knees has practically disappeared in a short space of time. I suggest people read as much info as possible and make their own informed choice.Wisetalk (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Silverchemist, I am not sure if that is a direct quote or not (I haven't read the book) but our leaders DO have a SIGNIFICANT stake in keeping us sick, instead of curing us. If diseases such as cancer were cured, there would be NO income from treating them. You think the pharmaceutical companies will give up all that money? If you do you're very naive. It is most likely why there's no information about this other than that site, because why would medical researchers research this? Their research is funded by organizations, most likely academic ones who want money and pharmaceutical companies who also want money. So chances are if a doctor wanted to do testing and research on MMS, they would be told no under the false reasoning that "it's a bunch of hooey." That is not the scientific method. That is doing exactly the same that these sites who are fraudulent do, instead they declare it a FAILURE without any kind of scientific testing.

I personally think that there should be at least a mention of MMS or at least a page for it here, because as soon as I was told about it I went here to look and found nothing. I had to search for a while to find that small blurb, and then "still testing is being done" where? how? I think there needs to be a reference there. - Aqhillie (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Whichever pharmaceutical giant cures generic cancer will make hundreds of billions of dollars which can then be used to expand into research on anti-aging and all of the hundreds of other diseases. Compared to all the world's ills, cancer isn't that big a money maker.
2) Many of the people who work on anti-cancer therapies have a personal stake of some sort in curing cancer. If you think a university research scientist won't release an effective cure for cancer when members of their friends or family have cancer just to make money for giant pharmaceuticals, I think you're very naive. ;P
3) If something is that good at non-specifically killing bacteria internally, it's probably capable of harming a person's own cells as well (as a generality, bacteria tend to be more hardy than human cells). Even if it isn't (and there are things which won't harm human cells but will kill bacteria), I don't want the friendly bacteria in my intestines perpetually killed. Such is a recipe for chronic (and deadly, over the long term) diarrhea and non-absorption of necessary nutrients. -- (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph on ClO2 as a 'stabilized' miracle disinfectant, because it had no citations and made several broad claims. If you people who favor fake miracle cures want to keep debating about it here, that's fine, but please don't pass off misinformation as common knowledge. -Theubercuber —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This REALLY needs citations. I took a look at the guy's book too, chemistry is horrible. Any real doctors or scientists looked in on this? And Aqhillie - the government has no reason to make people sick. Sick people don't work and thus don't pay taxes, and are often on government-subsidized programs. Please people don't be so paranoid. Wikipedia is meant to share knowledge, not conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The FDA has issued a safety alert regarding use as a dietary supplement. Given this page's history (and my lack of wiki-foo) someone should add that on the page somewhere. Safety Alert —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article really needs at least a mention of the "Miracle Mineral Solution" (MMS); it is not an issue whether it has been scientifically verified or not (which must be stated, unless the contrary is proven). It is a reference to an existing phenomenon (MMS) related to that article, not a statement about whether it is effective or not. (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This statement is correct, the reaction to make it must be endothermic. Also you typically refer to a compound as high in energy or unstable, not exothermic as would be more correct than endothermic at least.

Endothermic or Exothermic[edit]

At the time I'm looking at the page it says that Chlorine dioxide is endothermic but that it also spontaneously explodes when concentrated above 15%. This would indicate that it is an exothermic compound if I understand it correctly. Since I'm not a regular contributor I will leave it up to some of the rest of you to check this out and make changes if you see fit. -- (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Is chlorine dioxide polar? (when in liquid shape)

Chlorine dioxide is a gas and it dissolves in water (not react), then you can consider it polar.

Araújo Campani. 08:30, 22 November 2007.

Reducing agent?[edit]

I am not sure about this statement under 'Preparation'.

Chlorine dioxide can be produced by reducing sodium chlorate in a strong acid solution with a suitable reducing agent (for example, hydrogen peroxide, sulfur dioxide, or hydrochloric acid):

I do not recall Hydrogen Peroxide to be a reducing agent, but an oxidizer.

It can be either, depending on the reaction:
Ryanrs 11:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It's actually used as a reducing agent in water treatment to remove residual hypochlorous acid. dil 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


What pH is considered a strong acid solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Depends on your solvent and context. But generally, in water one would regard a pH < 1 to be strongly acidic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's meant as a solution of a strong acid i.e. one that ionizes completely in solution? dil 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Gordon G, Rosenblatt A. A. (2005). "Chlorine Dioxide: The Current State of the Art". Ozone: Science and Engineering. 27 (3): 203 – 207. doi:10.1126/science.143.3603.247. 
  • Deshwal B. R., Lee H. K. (2005). "Manufacture of chlorine dioxide from sodium chlorate: State of the art". Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 11 (3): 330–346. 

clo2 from where it available as raw material or to prepare from Ca CLO2): 62–72.  line feed character in |issue= at position 2 (help)

--Stone 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs proper citation of the references given. Hard to discern where many of these claims stem from. Would be good for the authors to do so. Halogenated (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

online article about chlorate-based method[edit]

I can't find article about chlorate-based method. Most of the articles are about chlorite-based. Would someone like to make an article about it? How is the process description of manufacturing chlorine dioxide by using sodium chlorate (chlorate-based method)? What is chlorate-based method's conversion factor by using sulfur dioxide (in acidic condition) in its generator? --user:Amanda_molly December,2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amanda molly (talkcontribs) 06:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Here's an article from Aker Kvaerner about the generation of Chlorine Dioxide using a solution of sodium chlorate and hydrochloric acid; the overall reaction shown to be:
2NaClO3 + 4HCl → 2ClO2 + Cl2 + 2NaCl + 2H2O —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More soluble at higher temperatures?[edit]

The last time I checked, 4 degrees Celsius was not "boiling":

Its solubility increases at higher temperatures: it is thus common to use boiling water (5 °C or 41 °F)

Joseph N Hall 10:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--> Also please note typically gas solubility increases with decreasing temperature, a funny trend but noticable when you open a cold 2 liter of soda and a warm 2 liter of soda, which one fizzes more?

Equation not balanced?[edit]

The second equation in the Preparation section does not balance. Should it be:

HClO3 + HClO2 → 2ClO2 + H2O --Phthspok (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Could you tell me how can ClO2 exist? I knew that chlorine has valencies of 1, 3, 5, and 7, and in this compound it's got 4. How is it possible? Please answer, but in easy English. Macer - my talk: (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The most common oxidation states in stable compounds of chlorine are 1, 3, 5, and 7, but there are in fact compounds in oxidation states 2, 4, and 6 as well. ClO2 is an example of Cl(IV); it does not fulfill the octet rule on the chlorine atom but is a radical, same as NO and NO2. --Itub (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition by kt: I'd like to add to those comments that I'm having serious problems with the chemical structure as presented. To me it appears someone took a carbon dioxide molecule and fancifully stuck an "l" on it. I was taught in chemistry (whether that was in high school or university classes) that such a structure (chlorine possessing four bonds to two oxygens) would be physically impossible. My understanding suggests that would even be true if it were part of some larger complex. Its worth noting that this Wikipedia article is being used as the primary scientific reference in the promotion of an alternative health product. Giving this article a "B" seems very generous of Wikipedia.

Keeper Trout

If anyone can give me some facts to the contrary I would very much welcome hearing them: Keepertrout (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the included reference online: CAS Registry Number: 10049-04-4, its clear that the structure presented on this Wikipedia page is incorrect. Keeper Trout Keepertrout (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article already discusses in some detail the issues with drawing the structure and provides several references about it. The diagram in the infobox may be questionable but is a common, conventional, shorthand. --Itub (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Macer @Keeper Trout -- You are completely correct that it doesn't follow these conventional rules. But valency rules, including the octet rule and Lewis diagrams, are only a pragmatic summary or shorthand that works most of the time, not all of the time. To understand the "exceptions", one would have to do a detailed and exact analysis at the level of quantum chemistry (Schroedinger equation or even Dirac, I suppose, for a multi particle system). This is quite difficult at the mathematical level -- not so much difficult to understand, that is not the point, but difficult to carry out computationally. Ideas such as the 3-electron sharing and resonances are a more refined vocabulary (more refined than valency rules) for approaching the "ultimate" quantum chemistry, but even they are heuristic and qualitative, not perfect predictors. (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fork with a grudge?[edit]

Please take a look at Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Twisted information and Disguised marketing advertisment for - Shame on them ![edit]

It is too bad that some companies try to do business and spoil the spirit of Wikipedia. It is too obvious that the author of this article while pretending to give objective and scientific information to pretend to educate people about chlorine dioxide has the opposite goal in mind. Half truth, omissions, approximation,... all this to drag a few leads to . This is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterreview (talkcontribs) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"MMS has been marketed as a treatment for a variety of conditions, including HIV, cancer, autism, and acne." I wonder if these are approved, or illegal, or somewhere between? It would be interesting to have a source on this. (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement[edit]

We have sources for this edit[1] and it is clearly not giving any medical advice so MEDRS does not apply. // Liftarn (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I can see the misunderstanding now. The scope of WP:MEDRS isn't limited solely to medical advice, but extends to all medical- and health-related content. The use of chlorine dioxide to "cure autism and other diseases" – however wrongheaded, dangerous, appalling, and totally ineffective that use is &dnash; is certainly purporting to be a medical application, and therefore engages MEDRS.
Even without MEDRS, describing this application in the article's section on "Other uses" without reference to its (lack of) efficacy and incredible danger is reckless, as it implies that this may be a legitimate use.
In any case (and as explicitly noted by AndyTheGrump in his revert), the use of chlorine dioxide as a bogus and dangerous "therapy" is addressed in the section immediately following, "Safety issues in water and supplements". Not only does that section already describe Miracle Mineral Supplement, but it does so in a thoroughly-referenced manner fully compliant with MEDRS. Adding a duplicate description to the "Other uses" section is needless repetition of material already present. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Reckless, and not even accurately representing the (non-WP:MEDRS) source cited, which not only describes it as pseudoscience, but goes on to describe the dangers of the 'miracle cure'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As an Anti-Bacterial Oral Rinse[edit]

The oral rinse CloSYS contains chlorine dioxide as an anti-bacterial agent. The ingredients are printed on this product, and the product is widely available. There is research on the use of chlorine dioxide to control dental bacteria, but that seems quite separate from the mere fact of a product existing that uses chlorine dioxide for the purpose of controlling oral bacteria. I think this use of chlorine dioxide merits inclusion on the chlorine dioxide page. Verazzano (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing belongs anywhere without a source - specifically third-party sourcing, compliant with WP:MEDRS if the article is going to make assertions about a product being used as an "anti-bacterial agent". And you need to bear in mind that this is an international project - what is or isn't 'widely available' in the United States is of very little relevance to a great many amongst of our readership. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that there are two separate issues: (1) the practice of using a chemical for some purpose, and (2) the effectiveness of that use. You don't (or shouldn't) need to cite scientific literature to prove (1) -- for example, the use of fluoride in toothpaste, or the practice of using common salt (NaCl) when boiling water for pasta. Of course you are correct that to show effectiveness, citing scientific literature can be useful. But I originally just meant to add something to the page pointing out that this chemical is marketed in at least one oral anti-bacterial rinse, not to address the second (more complicated) question of how effective that anti-bacterial agent is at reducing oral bacteria specifically. Nevertheless, regarding the second issue, there is at least some literature: Kayoko Shinada et al. "Effects of a mouthwash with chlorine dioxide on oral malodor and salivary bacteria: a randomized placebo-controlled 7-day trial." Trials 2010, 11:14. Patel M1, Ebonwu J, Cutler E. "Comparison of chlorine dioxide and dichloroisocyanurate disinfectants for use in the dental setting." SADJ. 2012 Aug;67(7):364, 366-9.

Verazzano (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but nevertheless I would have to suggest that the article shouldn't include material on a named commercial product without third-party sourcing actually discussing the product in question, if only to demonstrate that is is seen as significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)