Talk:N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone

Move proposal

I suggest moving this article to N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (or some variant with the "N" in it) as that seems to be the more common name. The "N" version has more hits in Google and is less confusing since it's so often referred to as simply NMP. Are there any objections to this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I recommend N-Methylpyrrolidone, which is currently a "redirect", in which case you need to ask for help from an administrator.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical derivative details section

Very often I need to look up what a chemical is derived from. However many chemicals listed in Wikipedia don't show this within the page contents. They show a lot if information about the chemical structures and what they might be used for etc, but very often nothing about where they come from and what they are made from. This chemical N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone is a prime example where there is nothing give anywhere on the page how it is made or what from. Is it possible to always included a derivative section for chemicals being listed? (Jcampen (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Safety

Safety section claims it's "relatively innocuous", but it's got a safety diamond Health score of 2…? Got here from a news article that claimed it was poisonous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixeyes (talk • contribs) 09:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On July 14 2024 Smokefoot removed all information related to possible toxicity, with just mention that it was 'not very well sourced'. Now there is no information at all about health concerns. It at least deserves mention that in 2017 the EPA proposed a limited application ban, and the substance is on the California Prop 65 list for possibly causing birth defects: https://toxicfreefuture.org/toxic-chemicals/nmp-n-methylpyrrolidone

LD50 in rats is not necessarily indicative of birth defect risk in either rats or humans, and it is the only stat Smokefoot left behind. So definitely more info should be added here, whether to support or dismiss birth defect concerns. BBUCommander (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of safety data sheets (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/sds/sial/328634 https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=O36884&productDescription=1-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDINONE+P+4L&vendorId=VN00033897&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.jmnspecialties.com/downloads/sds/2839-nmp-sds/file) that mention risk to the unborn child - anyone reading this article could easily draw an incorrect conclusion on its safety based on the information in the safety paragraph. I think it's irresponsible to leave this as-is and the link provided in the citation does not work for me? Smokefoot's edits are equally unsourced as the section he replaced. I've redone it, focussing on the key information from safety datasheets and the EPA. 89.37.69.44 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]