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

Terrorism moved from Nitroglycerin to Operation Bojinka article[edit]

I have moved the Terrorism section from the Nitroglycerin article to the Talk:Operation Bojinka#Terrorism content moved from Nitroglycerin section because it does not belong here, and it looks similar, if not identical, to the text in Operation Bojinka. -Wikibob | Talk 13:41, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)


Detonation is not always fast combustion. There are 2 kinds of explosives- high and low. low explosivse like gunpowder simply burn fast. High explosives like Nitroglycerin undergo a rapid exothermic reaction that is not combining with oxygen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21:15, 16 May 2006 (talkcontribs) .

Above and beyond the difference between detonation and deflagration which you appear to be trying to describe, NG can undergo detonation at two very different speeds (both rather faster than deflagration).Bert2368 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

4 C3H5(ONO2)3 → 12 CO2 + 10 H2O + 6 N2 + O2

Această reacţie explică puterea explozivă foarte mare a nitroglicerinei; după cum se observă din 4 părţi de nitroglicerină rezultă aproximativ 29 părţi gaze.

Adus de la

Translation from Romanian: This reaction explains the extreme explosive power of nitrogliceryn. As you can see, from 4 parts nitroglycerin you get 29 parts gasses (including the vaporised water).

Because gasses have a "loose" molecular structure (density) the deflagration of nitroglycerin can simply be compared to obtaining a sudden burst of air from a tablespoon of liquid. Please note that none of the gasses expelled by the destabilised nitroglycerin (CO2, N2, H2O vapour) can be combusted. The oxygen itself can sustain another combustion process but it cannot get flame out of thin air. That is why pure nitroglycerin explosions, although exothermic(generate heat) have no flame whatsoever. Plus, there is an obvious 10 to 1 H2O-O2 ratio, not to forget N2 is a neutral gas that does not sustain combustion, and the CO2 actually inhibiting combustion.

For that reason, nitroglycerin-based explosives are sometimes used to extinguish oil rig fires.

BlackTomcat (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Colour / Color[edit]

'It is colored yellow when it is decomposing due to acidic pH.'

I removed this. If the (anonymous) authour of this comment meant "yellow in the presence of some particular indicator" then it shoud be left out. If it is actually yellow itself, then if someone can explain why, then they should add it. Acids are not just yellow because they are acid. TomViza 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that the compound itself would turn yellow in the presence of an indicator, but this is likely a reference to the formation of nitrogen oxide contaminates indicated as a result of decomposition caused by acidic pH. So if I were you, I'd put it back and in future be a little less hasty when editing content. GreatMizuti 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Surely this isn't right ...

"Early in the history of this explosive it was discovered that liquid nitroglycerin can be "desensitized" by cooling to 5 to 10 °C (40 to 50 °F), at which temperature it freezes"

"the solid is even more shock-sensitive than the liquid"

These two statements contradict each other.

I'm not going to put this in the article, since this is pure speculation, but I think what may be happening is that since the liquid is able to conform to the shape of its container, it may be more likely to, simply move out of the way when, for example, a hammer strikes a drop of nitro, while the same would not be true of the solid. So while it may require more energy to detonate the solid, it may be easier to impart that energy. --AK7 22:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The solid is less sensitive. There are historical instances where an explosion of the liquid material has caused heavy machinery and big blocks of iron to fall on the frozen material in storage without additional incident. The assumption the solid was more sensitive is a very early mistake not repeated in academic books for a good 60 years or so. Have just edited a bunch of mistakes out of the main article like that, adding mixed acid to glycerine instead of the other way around (shudder) adding the glycerine rapidly and deliberatly before the mixture has a chance to cool (double shudder). Ambix 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A very early mistake not repeated for a good 60 years or so? How about the current Encyclopedia Brittanica? "A serious problem in the use of nitroglycerin results from its high freezing point (13{degree} C [55{degree} F]) and the fact that the solid is even more shock-sensitive than the liquid." Source: Anon

Well, we all know how trust worthy that is: Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia.—WAvegetarianCONTRIBUTIONSTALK EMAIL 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats wrong. The solid is less sensitive than the liquid. Incredibleman007 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is detonation an exponential phenomenon?[edit]

Surely this isn't right ...

"the explosive power of nitroglycerin is derived from detonation: a shock propagates through the fuel-rich medium at a supersonic speed"

"a self-sustained cascade of near instantaneous pressure-induced decomposition into gas of the explosive material which grows upon itself exponentially"

If a shock wave propagates through the medium at a fixed speed then the rate of the explosion will increase with the square of time (because the surface area of the shock wave increases with the square of its radius, which is increasing at a fixed rate). This is not exponential growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The initial shockwave propagates at a single speed but I think that if it indeed does cascade it would be exponential. Oh, you're also thinking in two dimmensions! Also, my math is a little rusty, but isn't two the exponent of a squared function? GreatMizuti 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
A function is exponential if one of its variables is in the exponent. Thus is exponential in , while isn't. --Swift 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sensitivity of RDX[edit]

"In this undiluted form it is one of the most powerful high explosives, comparable to the military explosives RDX and PETN (which are not used in munitions at full concentration because of their sensitivity) as well as the plastic explosive C-4."

I do not think the previous statement is true; RDX is incredibly stable at normal temperatures. That's why the military uses it in its pure form, although I am not sure enough of this statement to change it. Anyone to back me up?


According to the RDX page, you are right: "at room temperature, it is a very stable product." But, it also says that below -4C, it cristallyses and becomes sensitive. I don't think that would be terribly useful to the military; as a general rule they require that their munitions be equally safe/useful in all climate conditions. RDX is used as a primary part of many military explosive compositions, but it is almost never the only ingredient.--AK7 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I rescind my statement. Thanks for clearing that up Blutpanzer 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Preparation: Neutral or it will explode?[edit]

"Give it one more wash with a concentrated sodium chloride solution and then test with litmus for acidity. It should be neutral or it will explode. Keep washing until it tests neutral with litmus."

That needs to be clarified. If it were going to explode you would have already found out, and you wouldn't have had a chance to fix it. What is it really meaning to say? Heresyte 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It can in time, though.... (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If the nitroglycerin is left being acidic, it may explode without warning after some time.

Acidic Nitroglycerine is more sensitive than neutral so it is recomended that it be neutralised after production to prevent accidental detonation. By the way sodium chloride is table salt, it should be sodium bicarbonate (Baking soda). Incredibleman007 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitrogen a common element in explosives?[edit]

Moved the following comment here from an unrelevant section above. --Swift 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ya i took out the part saying that most explosives use nitro cuz that is not true. if you are thinking about civilian then ANFO w/ a booster is the most common and in millitary RDX/C4/SEMTEX or even good ol TNT but not dynomite or blasting gel which are the only two nitro based explosve i can think of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:59, 24 May 2006.

Yes it is true. The so called explosive molecules on which these concoctions, RDX, C4, SEMTEX, are all predicated on the fact that nitrogen readily (thermodynamically) converts energetically (kinetically) to its 0 oxidative state, N2 (g) (a small molecule, thereby fulfilling the three criterion for an effective explosive agent). I think the issue here is that we have a clash of people who're familiar with chemistry nomenclature and people who are familiar with slang. I'd re-instate the comment: Nitrogen is a common element in explosives.

~~ In ALMOST all explosives, nitrogen's reluctant bonding is the key to its power. However, in a small percentage; chlorates, peroxides, gold and rare gas compounds; not nitrogen but again, an instable bond occurs. In deflagration; as in a dust or gasoline vapor explosion; a very quick burn ensues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost all explosives contain Nitrogen. A good amount of the explosives power comes from the Nitrogen rebonding. Incredibleman007 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Density ?[edit]

The density of nitroglycerine is obviously alot more than 1.13 kg / m^3, I assume the m^3 is meant to be dm^3 (ie. nitroglycerine is 13% heavier then water)

It is 1.6; it is listed in the sidebar. The fact it sinks in water is a clue you are right. (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suitability of synthesis description[edit]

In early 2006 the Nitroglycerin article had a section detailing the synthesis of the chemical. In February, it was mentioned on this talk page that this information might not be suitable for Wikipedia. A slow debate started and continued with interludes untill July 2006 when the matter was resolved.

The content was removed in accordance with the Wikipedia official policy on "Instruction manuals" in the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section) and moved to the wikibook Chemical synthesis.

That Wikibook was subsequently deleted-- the information is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was archived at Talk:Nitroglycerin/Synthesis discussion. For the last talk page version before refactoring, see the revision as of 04:03, 28 July 2006.

For further discussion on the topic or the archiving, please do not use the arcived discussion, but place your comments below. Once the discussion is over, these can be moved to the archive.

--Swift 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 


Not to be picky, but I just think that "sulfur" should be spelled one way or the other....not both. Particularly in the manufacturing section. I'll leave it to others to decide which form is better to use (European "sulphur" as opposed to American "sulfur"), but it should be uniform throughout, or it'll look dumb.

According to WP:CHEMS guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines#Element_names) the spelling should be "sulfur". Accordingly, I've made the necessary spelling changes. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article (but not this talk page) blocked by my employer's net nanny[edit]

Perhaps this is old news, but the article nitroglycerin is presently being blocked by the SmartFilter Internet proxy software as a "criminal skills" page. I am able to access the talk page. This is the first time I've seen a Wikipedia page blocked by this particular filter.--EngineerScotty 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was true before we edited the synthesis section so I suppose that makes sense.GreatMizuti 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What did it say before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tantrums (talkcontribs) 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

It contained a scale-ready, detailed synthesis method. Some people thought it was inappropriate, nothing anybody who knows anything didn't already know however. GreatMizuti 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be reported and reverted. Home production of pure nitroglycerin is so dangerous that roughly 40% of all "terrorists" that attempted it ended up in giblets. It strikes me like a very effective method of getting rid of wannabe criminals.

Yes, I'm sorry, this is a forum-type discussion, it shouldn't be posted here, I know.

BlackTomcat (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anal Fissure Treatment[edit]

This page really needs a citation for that, or it needs to be removed. Seriously. -OcciMoron

Google and ye shall receive.GreatMizuti 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!! ANAL FISSURE !!!! HAHAHAHA. Sorry i just wasn't expecting there to be anything on anal fissures on a Nitroglycerine page. Incredibleman007 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I beleive I learned the formula should be written C2H5(O-NO2)3

Bonding location is important, yes, but strictly speaking the method which the formula is written depends on what in formation you're trying to communicate.GreatMizuti 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that this article (especaly the manufacturing section) should contain a warning that if you try to make nitroglycerin you run a huge risk of killing yourself.--Hacky 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, even the bloody anarchists cookbook has disclaimers. I wasn't expecting to see a full-fleged recipe. 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)sammy

You're saying that we should warn people that if try to synthesize explosives they could blow themselves up? Moreover that isn't a full-fleged sic recipe, it's an incredibly brief synthesis description that isn't too heavy on the chemistry.GreatMizuti 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

as someone pointed out somewhere online, "just remove the warning labels and let the idiot problem in this world solve itself" I do not agree with this statement but I do find it quite funny. I am, however shocked by the recipe. maybe it should be removed??? i guess that would go against wikipedia guidelines, and maybe it is pretty much common knowledge... this is a dilemma... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr... we're talking about a very complex chemical reaction that would require incredible skill and expensive equipment to produce safely. This isn't the type of thing where you mix water add salt and boil. The reason such types of synthesis explanations are on Wikipedia is to help explain the mechanism by which the reactions take place, and why they happen. The type of syntheses you see on Wikipedia are more theoretical in form, not practical. saumaun (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

glyceryl trinitrate[edit]

i think this article should be renamed, simply because, though commonly used, "nitroglycerin" is incorrect· Lygophile has spoken 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1234 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, as an explosive, it is known as Nitroglycerine, the USA miss off the "e", and it has been known as this for more than 100 years. Medically it might be known as glyceryl trinitrate, but this article is not particularly medical; and there is a separate article see Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology), which links back to this one. Pyrotec 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

formula and nitrating[edit]

The formula is actually 4C3H5N3O9(my computer didnt want to write it right so its And then to the nitrating. In the process you dont actually nitrate the glycerin, but you do it the other way around you add glycerin to the acid solution.

Skele 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)(and remember im the real skele)Anarchist Cookbook rules.

Oh yeah and one more thing. According to the anarchists cookbook, in the making process you need a tub full of ice to keep the nitro from exploding and it doesnt say anything about it freezing so i doubt that it freezes at under 13 celsius. And if the nitro gets over 30 celsius it should be poured in the tub immediately.

The molecular formula of nitroglycerin is not 4C3H5N3O9, it's C3H5N3O9. This can be written C3H5(NO3)3, as is done in the article.
Ben 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it Will freeze. The ice and salt and/or alcohol/acetone keep it cool, as an exothermic reaction occurs on nitrating (it gets hot). If the temperature is checked it Will be above 13 C; for good nitration; but below 30 C for safety. Adding more glycerine increases temperature; slowing the addition allows it to drop. This is how the old batch process kept the temperature right. It is removed immediately after stirring, if you read on, not left in the ice. (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


I find the article's very brief mention of NG's use in propellants to be unbalanced, as in the US this is currently it's largest use.

A section detailing the development of colloided powders using NG and nitrocellulose would seem to be in order- I will see what I can come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert2368 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point and one I'd not noticed before. This use is well covered in smokeless powder, Poudre B, Ballistite and Cordite. You are welcome to add a new section, but I suggest you use: and that way you only need to add a summary. The USA did not use nitroglycerin-based propellants in World War I and I got the impression the USA did not use them in World War II either, so its a relatively recent adoption (my lifetime anyway).Pyrotec 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. I saw Mickey Mouse cartoons from the war encouraging fat to be collected and donated for use in making explosives--it had to be rendered into glycerin for nitroglycerin. I don't think Military dynamite even in WWII contained N/G; so it had to all go for some propellants. What Percentage used double base, I don't know. Mickey and Pluto didn't say.... (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're thinking only of rifle propellants, that's true. The IMR's used in WWI and WWII rifle and machine gun ammo were single base. But the propellants for infantry mortars, bazooka rockets and some other tactical weapons were double based, and not insignifigant in quantity used. Double based ball powders were perfected before WWII, many varieties are now in military use, of course. The use of NG for commercial blasting explosives is now only of historical interest in the US- No NG based "dynamites" have been made here for quite a while.Bert2368 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Quite. Write Austin Powder in Cleveland--it is still of some use in commercial dynamite. Much has been superseded by ANFO and other ammonium nitrate compounds as the major/total ingredients, though, as you stated. (Can't crack steel with ANFO--takes Nitro. (or RDX/TNT; etc. And these miltary explosives produce a lot of toxic smoke, so no good in an enclosed mine.)) (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


What happens when one drinks it? melikamp (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology).Pyrotec (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That would Blow your Bridge, wouldn't it? (ha, ha) It Is fatal--the max dose isn't much. A pill is only 250 Milli Grams. Hardly a speck. Its sweet/bitter taste isn't too bad. Keep away from pets, like cats. (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem in the 'History' para?[edit]

I don't think the first three sentences go together very well:

'Nitroglycerin was the first easily developed explosive stronger than black powder. It was synthesized by chemist Ascanio Sobrero in 1847, working under TJ Pelouze at the University of Turin. Nobel initially called his discovery pyroglycerine, and warned vigorously against its use as an explosive.'

If it was Nobel that discovered NG surely he should be mentioned first as the way it's currently written it gives the impression that Sobrero was first - or am I reading this the wrong way? What do others think?

I'd also request clarifying that Heleneborg (where initial development took place) is in Sweden - Nobel moved to Germany in 1865 after the explosion at the Heleneborg estate that killed his brother Andywebby (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some of your comments, but No it was discovered by Sobrero, and the whole of "It was synthesized by chemist Ascanio Sobrero in 1847, working under TJ Pelouze at the University of Turin. Nobel Sobrero initially called his discovery pyroglycerine, and warned vigorously against its use as an explosive" refers to Sobrero. I mistakenly corrected the last edit.
Nobel was the man who successfully (in both a financial and practical sense) used it as a commercial explosive.Pyrotec (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


The solubility, if any, isn't listed. What is its solubility in alcohol, acetone, chloroform? What is the best solvent for it? (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello guys. Excellent article. I was wondering if you had any more information though. I'm writing a novel and one of the main characters is synthesising nitroglycerine.

My question is how would he go about getting the synthesised nitroglycerine into a vessel like a pipe or a tin? Is it just a matter of pouring it in like amatol? Sounds a bit dangerous considering what I've learned already. How was it introduced into a blasting vessel back in the day? Was it cooled and then poured in when it was thicker and less sensitive?

It's only a tiny thing really, but I hate writing about something I've not researched.

Cheers in advance Captain deathbeard (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The man in the street (whether it be a pharmacologist, someone working with explosives, or another interested person) will look on Wikipedia/Google for Nitroglycerin, so this is probably the normal incoming page. That page has extensive sections on its chemical data, its explosive data, its pharmacological data, and on its medical data. Then the pharmacology, has a fork, which is in glyceryl trinitrate. As the more important info is already in nitroglycerin (and people wanting info fast will not look on, they will look for the info there .. they even would expect the info here) there will be significant less people trying to find info on glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology) (I know Wikipedia is used by medical people in emergency like-situations (maybe they shouldn't, but they do ..), if they then have to get to another page for the pharmacological data, and at the same time they do not get the full explosive data (say the medical case involves being subjected to a large amount of pure nitroglycerin), that seems to me that that is not exactly helping - administering antidote while by accident igniting the stuff ...). To me, it looks silly that we have two articles on the same compound, where the second of the three main uses (IMHO, this compound is mainly known for its explosive function, then for its pharmacological function, and thirdly for some chemical and general properties) is forked into a seperate article. I suggest hence to merge glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology) into nitroglycerin. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. The first line in the Nitroglycerin ("NG") article states "This article is about the chemical properties of nitroglycerin and its use as an explosive. For medical and pharmacological applications, see glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology)." I think the main problem is the indiscriminate addition of pharmacological information in to the main Nitroglycerin ("NG") article. I tend to agree that there are two main uses, explosive and medical uses (for angina, etc). The "NG" article was written to cover bulk manufacture and its usage; and it (obviously) covers physical properties and some of the toxicological effects of exposure to "NG". The Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology) article has much more medical information about the use of this material as a drug, but surprisingly little in the way of Trade names - these appear in the "NG" article and really have no place being there. I don't know but I suspect that Glyceryl trinitrate intended for medical use is made in very small quantities in a pharmaceutical laboratory under a "medical products licence" and not in an explosive factory. I've never heard of a pharmacy exploding because someone has dropped the Glyceryl trinitrate tablets: the current Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology) article does not discuss the explosive use of this material and nor does it need to. I recommend that irrelevant material, i.e. medical Trade Names, etc, be removed from the Nitroglycerin article and that "medical aspects" of that article be limited to what was at one time called "Industrial exposure" (such as at this revision]). I further disagree with the suggestion that three articles are needed, or even desirable, with a third article covering chemical and general properties, this is vitally important to the safe manufacture, storage and use of both Nitroglycerin as a raw material and as an ingredient in explosive formulations (smokeless powder, dynamite, etc) that it needs to be in the Nitroglycerin article, not placed elsewhere in a separate "chemical article". Pyrotec (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes while I agree nitroglycerin in the parent article it should just provide a summary of the medical aspects. The extensive medical details should be dealt with on the subpage. The subpage would be better at Glyceryl trinitrate (medication) but that will need discussion elsewhere. We do this with the article on lithium. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
While it can be used as either an explosive or a vasodilator (generally), nitroglycerin and glyceryl trinitrate are the same exact thing. As such, the article should be all on one page with as much detail as is given in each as needed. An equivalent example to keeping these articles separate would be to make separate articles for "Water" and "H2O" simply because only those whom know chemistry can really understand the difference. Having two articles for the same thing waste space and has the potential to confuse people. Hippie King 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionmaster15 (talkcontribs)
This is not two article for the same things. This is one article is a general overview of the topic. The other article is an in depth analysis of a particle aspect of the whole topic. We do this for many topics when it becomes to difficult to have everything on one page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree to merge the two articles. In their present condition, they look like a censorship attempt, to hide the fact that "glyceryl trinitrate", the good substance that saves people from heart failure, is actually nitroglycerin, the evil substance that explodes and kills people in acts of indescribable violence. Devil Master (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with merge. Glyceryl trinitrate or GTN are the only terms I've seen used in medicine, Nitroglycerine is the term used in chemistry. The scenario that someone covered in nitroglycerine will cause a rescuer to look up GTN prior to touching, fail to see it is explosive and set it off as a consequence seems silly. These are articles with a lot of scope, would warrant IMHO a sub page for medical uses anyway and it simply makes less sense to have a Nitroglycerine(pharmacology) page when this is not the term used in medicine. I do think the glyceryl trinitrate disambiguation page should just redirect to the pharm page, though the first line of either does the job people will usually be seeking medical information by using this term. If anything we should downplay explosive properties in medical GTN which carries no explosion risk, we don't want to scare vulnerable people or cause patients to refuse treatment. Ambix (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


Articles says "degrades over time to even more unstable forms" What does it degrade into? RJFJR (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Industrial exposure - withdrawal[edit]

The article reads "Withdrawal can (rarely) be fatal". If there have been rare cases where withdrawal has been fatal, why not just say so? Using parentheses seems to suggest that it's a suspicion even more uncertain than that. Or am I being picky?Twistlethrop (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole section has no references and I did not write it; but yes, without any proof to hand, there might be a suspicion. How do you prove it: "death due to nitroglycerine withdrawal" is not a recognised form of death, so it'd not going to say that on the death certificate? Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nitroglycerin.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nitroglycerin.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Why is the formula given as C3N3H5O9? I thought it was typically written as C3H5N3O9. Explodo-nerd (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is supposed to be written as C3H5N3O9, so i'm fixing it. Explodo-nerd (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Occurrence in nature?[edit]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if nitroglycerin occurs anywhere in nature? If it does, it might be good to mention where in the article. If it does not, it might be good to mention that it is a purely man made substance. --Mlewan (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nitroglycerin is not naturally occurring. It is formed through nitration of its parent compound, which is generally unfavored as it is making a more unstable compound. saumaun (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Structures under Synthesis[edit]

The structures for glycerin and nitroglycerin under the synthesis section have one too many carbons. I do not have any kind of chemical drawing software to edit it, though, but the structure on the sidebar is correct.

Old page history[edit]

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Nitroglycerin" can now be found at Talk:Nitroglycerin/Old history. Graham87 08:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Manufacture Section Misleading[edit]

As written the "Manufacture" section is somewhat misleading. The opening sentences of the section seem to falsely imply that Nitric Acid and Sulfuric Acid are the ONLY ingredients necessary to synthesize nitroglycerine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B006:EAC8:31DB:C4EF:8A54:B5EF (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's been re-written since the above, but from what I remember of college chemistry (disclaimer: before most of you were born), it still seems odd. It says "Nitroglycerin can be produced by acid catalyzed nitration of glycerol", but the picture appears to show both Nitric acid and Sulfuric acid as catalysts. (Both appear above the arrow, rather than to the left.) But since the only place the nitro groups can come from in the output is the nitric acid, in which case the nitric acid gets used up--it isn't a catalyst, only the sulfuric acid is. So shouldn't the HNO3 be on the left-hand side of the arrow, rather than above the arrow? Mcswell (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)