Jump to content

Talk:Sodium triphosphate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title-lede inconsistency

[edit]

Is there a chemistry-related reason why the initial reference in the lede doesn't match the article title? I propose changing the current:
Sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP, sometimes STP or sodium triphosphate ...
to the less incongruous:
Sodium triphosphate (STP, sometimes STPP or sodium tripolyphosphate...
Any objections? --lizardo_tx (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit. --lizardo_tx (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental effects

[edit]

The section on "Environmental effects", as well as being poorly written, seems disingenuous. It spends a lot of words on the (uncited) claim that STPP isn't poisonous, but that's not really the issue of concern with this substance. The issue is that it's an inorganic phosphate, and (like other inorganic phosphates) it's a nutrient (not a poison) to organisms like plankton. Think "phosphate fertilizer." Phosphates contribute to blooms that deplete other nutrients and mess up the food chain, as in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Anyone care to write some more-balanced text on the environmental issues surrounding STPP? 69.63.59.137 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some info from the Danish EPA and put it in. So we now have some balanced, sourced environmental info. Fanra (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "As STPP is an inorganic substance, biodegradation studies are not applicable." This is incorrect, as biological organisms are capable of 'degrading' (i.e. using) many inorganic substances. As mentioned by 69.63.59.137 above, STPP may even be a food source. --66.92.171.249 (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's disingenuous. "[T]he amount from urban and household use is less than 5% of the phosphorus run-off due to agricultural fertilizer use" is true only because phosphate has largely been removed from household detergents and cleansers. To use the post-reduction numbers as "evidence" that reduction is not needed is flat-out misleading. 24.177.0.155 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the chemical used for baked beans....

[edit]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not natural preservatives...???

[edit]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More info about the chemical from Google scholar....

[edit]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.218.196 (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Presently the HERA link lands at Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator which is very misleading. The right target should be House and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of Household Cleaning Products, an article which does not yet exist in en.WP. I suggest such an article to be created. See Guidance Document Methodology for an introduction: [1]
82.182.149.179 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Environmental Effects" section needs edit

[edit]

"STPP hydrolyses to phosphate, which is be assimilated into the natural . . ."

Please would someone knowedgeable edit this to make sense ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]