|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
Question: HFC Abbreviations
The article isn't clear on the use of abbreviations of "Perfluorinated compounds", sometimes the abbreviation is written "PFCs", sometimes the weird "PFC's". I am no native speaker, but since the "C" stands for the plural "compounds" shouldn't the abbreviation be just PFC? (c.f. article on HFC/HFCs (chemical))22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
associations with health conditions
here is an interesting piece about how some PFC may be in some way linked with ADHD http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100720131902.htm 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- thanks, this study is already cited at PFOS and PFOA but perhaps a small section on here for health concerns would be nice eventually. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Other atom or functional group
The articlke states "A perfluorinated compound (PFC) is an organofluorine compound with all hydrogens replaced by fluorine on a carbon chain—but the molecule also contains at least one different atom or functional group." Especially the last part of this statement is, in my opinion, overdone. The compound hexafluor benzene quit often is refered to as "perfluorobenzene". Also perfluoroalkanes are mentioned in chemical texts. Where is the "different atom or functional group" in those compounds? T.vanschaik (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) See also: Perfluorocarbon
- perfluoroalkanes are fluorocarbons. fluorocarbons are the IUPAC name for compounds that only contain carbon and fluorine. perhaps having the pages organofluorine compound, polyfluorinated compound, and fluorocarbon is the best solution. i didn't create this page, although i thought about it, but i did clean it up. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
this article needs additional work
The universe of Perfluorinated Compounds is greater that what is reflected here, and includes inorganic compounds such as SF6 and NF3. Perfluorinated Compounds also include perfluorinated alkanes such as CF4 and C2F6. This article needs to be expanded to include all of the different categories of compounds that can be considered to be Perfluorinated Compounds. Eyeze (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a huge overlap in the content of this page and that of Fluorocarbon. The disambiguation page PFC lists both, which puzzles this reader. I don't know which is the better title to preserve (making the other a redirect), but I hope that discussion can occur in just one place, so I suggest this section as that place. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
What do you think is overlapping? If the two pages were merged you would end up with a single page that is as long as both pages combined. There is no repeated content. I can see an argument for adding perfluorocarbons to this page and a link to the other page; that would probably be a good idea. But really, this page is a jumping off point to the different types of perfluorinated compounds, and not much more than that (and that is probably a good thing). F2Andy (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The two pages start off with the same definition, one says "Fluorocarbons, sometimes referred to as perfluorocarbons or PFCs" and the other says "A perfluorinated compound (PFC)". I do not see a way to find out about perfluorinated carboxylic acids if one starts at Fluorocarbon. If one is searching for information on "perfluorinated surfactants", which is a commonly seen term, then at "perfluorinated compound", searching for "surfactant" does not find the section called "Fluorosurfactants"; if one starts instead at Fluorocarbon, the link to Fluorosurfactant is helpfully glossed as "fluorinated surfactants", so text search finds it. Fluorocarbon discusses "Environmental and health concerns" for fluoroalkanes, fluoroalkenes and fluoroalkynes; the (single) section at Perfluorinated compound has a structure more amenable to additions, and to structuring it according to the level of risk (it also discusses the toxicity of the surfactants). In other words, the overlap is that the definitions are the same, so that a person with little background would spend some time wondering if there is an important but subtle difference in the wording; also, there may not be chunks of text duplicated, but rather conceptual components exist in both places, and those components are incomplete in both places. I believe that merging the pages could produce a better, more illuminating result. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well I tried to remove the merge tag, with good intentions, but was reverted. My mistake. So thanks.
- The comment above that the merged article would simply be a sum of the existing two articles seems like a valid point. The CxFy compounds (saturated, alkene, alkyne, and arenes) would be a section within the merged article. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
"For example, fluorosurfactants are widely used.."
In this edit from yesterday,with the summary "Perfluorinated compounds are used ubiquitously = bs, tighten up English" IMHO Smokefoot once more stepped over the boundaries of his chemical expertise. I have nothing against language-clean up, and agree with 90% of what´s in this edit, but not the fact that "Perfluorinated compounds are used ubiquitously" equals bullshit.
I also object to the fact, that the sentence "For example, fluorosurfactants are widely used.." was removed. Why? There´s no doubt that fluorosurfactants are one example of a group of Perfluorinated compounds which are particularly widely used. I know you are not trolling me, Smokefoot -:) but I find it strange that you do not thank me for constructive edits, while you routinely hit hard on the revert button. Lets be cool-headed, ok?
And BTW, the other revert March 2016 has a likely forbidding tone, though preceded by "well intended news report". To say that "Wikipedia is not the right place for such reporting" is incorrect - you could have worked with the user to make it fit (obviosly his/her edit wasnt properly done). The problem is that by now there are hundredsand hundreds of such PF contaminated sites in teh US ALONE (dont know about Europe, maybe you, Smokefoot, know) and they couldnt possibly be mentioned on this page! I have suggested a category before, which was (of course?) rejected. Please tell me, Smokefoot, how shall we solve that - a new page? --Wuerzele (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Wuerzele, apologies for appearing to step over you or be uncollegial. No problem is one differs in their views. I am part of a large group of researchers and hear a lot of seminars and read a lot of reports, perfluorocarbons are mentioned or designed into our work about once a year. So on that basis, the idea that perfluorocarbon "are used pervasively" is incorrect and misleading (technical term: bullshit). Pretty sure my experience is not an aberration. We dont want readers misinformed. Your other concern expressed above is my reverting of a new report about PFOS being found as a contaminant on a US airbase. My opinion is that Wikipedia is not the correct forum to list news reports. I revert a lot of news reports following my interpretation of the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. I am sure that PFOS is of concern, but listing individual news reports does not seem like the way to go.
- Getting back to business, the main issue with the article is the absence of a solid citation that supports the definition of this class of compounds. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)