Talk:Ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

155.250.198.101 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (IP registered to Merck KGaA)
155.250.255.157 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (IP registered to Merck KGaA)
Markrfi (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Weiu386 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IR3535. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've added a mention that IR3535 is a registered trademark of Merck KGaA, as I think this is uncontroversial. Please note that this is not intended as promotion but rather to give readers a fuller picture of what "IR3535" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markrfi (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article stub[edit]

i propose marking this article as stub. no history of use, no safety (LD or LC or whatever) (except stating "safe for babies") no date of first use, no other uses, no data on chemistry apart from "derivative of something". the whole article contains just as much information as a consumer product label.

i mean this is a chemical compound, there must be a preparation process in the industry. there must be some measurements of toxicity - or at least a known "never tested" piece of information would be more than the article contains at the moment. there must be a first known application, there might be other applications - or a statement of "not used for anything else", etc. so bottomline it is mostly the perspective of time, of a history thats missing - both as a compound and as a product. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like a stub to me too. Jidanni (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeltec fabric contains only 1.5% to 3% IR3535[edit]

Repeltec fabric contains only 1.5% to 3% IR3535. Is this sufficient for any protection against mosquitos and ticks?

The good thing is the manufacturer claims the protection remains after very many washes of the cloth.

https://bestfriend.com/pages/search-results-page?q=IR3535

Unfortunately, zero scientific references are given by the manufacturer.

So we have to rely on anecdotal evidence from users?

91.159.188.211 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]