Talk:Tetrachloroethylene

add regulatory efforts?

There is no discussion of regulatory efforts, such as EPA https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission Thanks.38.105.242.2 (

Interesting thread on the problems with drycleaners esp. in stripmalls, worth linking somehow?: https://twitter.com/realestatetrent/status/1437802803313922051 5.145.10.140 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tetrachloroethylene. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901121352/http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc19.html to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114160711/http://www.arb.ca.gov:80/toxics/dryclean/alternativesolvts_e.pdf to http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dryclean/alternativesolvts_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310093557/http://www.michaeljfox.org:80/newsEvents_parkinsonsInTheNews_article.cfm?ID=605 to http://www.michaeljfox.org/newsEvents_parkinsonsInTheNews_article.cfm?ID=605

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Discovery

I have read both Victor Regnault's 1839 report and Faraday's 1820 discovery in his 1850s work and compared 2 compounds that both have discovered via thermal decomposition of hexachloroethane. Whatever Faraday synthesized in 1820,was carbon tetrachloride and not tetrachloroethylene as this article suggests. Faraday mentions that this compound of carbon and chloride did not react with chlorine and boiled at 160~170 degrees Fahrenheit (which are the properties of carbon tet). The other carbon chloride that V. Regnault synthesized in 1839 by the same process did not boil until 120 degrees Celsius. Faraday mentions that his chloride of carbon has a density of 1.55, carbon tetrachloride's density is 1.58 and tetrachloroethylene's is 1.62. Which one sounds closer? Victor Regnault's 1839 chloride of carbon reportedly has a vapour density of 5.83. Remember, he is commonly credited for carbon tetrachloride which has a vapour density of 5.3 and not tetrachloroethylene which has a vapour density of 5.7. 176.88.97.55 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Advertisement for tetrachloroethylene capsules (USA, 1945)

• ... that tetrachloroethylene, the most common dry cleaning solvent, has been used as a medication against intestinal parasites in humans and animals?

• Source: Young, M.D.; et al. (1960). "The Comparative Efficacy of Bephenium Hydroxynaphthoate and Tetrachloroethylene against Hookworm and other Parasites of Man". American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 9 (5): 488–491. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1960.9.488. PMID 13787477.

• Reviewed:
• Comment: It's my first nomination for a DYK. The article isn't new, I am adding more information its use as an anthelmintic. Previously I added info on this use to Turkish Wikipedia, I'm currently translating it for the English article.

Moved to mainspace by ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

• This article has not been edited by a human for more than a month, therefore it is not eligible. Please read WP:DYKCRIT before nominating anything else.--Launchballer 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just added information about the use as an anthelmintic, with citations. ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To be considered here, articles need to be either completely new, expanded 5x by character count, or promoted to Good Article. None of these apply.--Launchballer 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought one of the criteria was that the article should have been translated from another language, which is what I did with a section. I believe the information I gave is interesting enough to be featured as DYK. ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The rule is that transwikied content can count as new, but what you've added isn't enough; you've increased the total from 7147 to 8053. You'd need another 27682 characters to qualify.--Launchballer 19:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I plan on working on the article to make it a Good Article, would it qualify? ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When it's promoted.--Launchballer 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Highly cited review

By far the most cited review on tetrachloroethylene according to Chemical Abstracts: Grandjean, Philippe; Landrigan, Philip J. (2014). "Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity". The Lancet Neurology. 13 (3): 330–338. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(13)70278-3. PMC 4418502. PMID 24556010.

"A review. Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chems. that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chems. as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiol. studies have documented six addnl. developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated di-Ph ethers." Cited 1018 times.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't feel "convincing" enough; you can't really know what effects would tetrachloroethylene have among many other chemicals on people (that's also why researches on dry cleaners are not convincing enough, too many other chemicals). If there are very strong neurotoxins like methylmercury compounds and toluene, you can't seperate their certain effects from tetrachloroethylene's possible effects. I feel like including this paper would make readers go "dry cleaning causes autism/ADHD/dyslexia". Researches involving multiple chemicals are flawed and shouldn't be cited for a suspected single chemical, in my opinion. ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Other highly cited reviews

cite 459x Vandenbroucke, Arne M.; Morent, Rino; De Geyter, Nathalie; Leys, Christophe (2011). "Non-thermal plasmas for non-catalytic and catalytic VOC abatement". Journal of Hazardous Materials. 195: 30–54. Bibcode:2011JHzM..195...30V. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.08.060. PMID 21924828. "A review. This paper reviews recent achievements and the current status of non-thermal plasma (NTP) technol. for the abatement of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Many reactor configurations were developed to generate a NTP at atm. pressure. Therefore in this review article, the principles of generating NTPs are outlined. Further on, this paper is divided in two equally important parts: plasma-alone and plasma-catalytic systems. Combination of NTP with heterogeneous catalysis has attracted increased attention to overcome the weaknesses of plasma-alone systems. An overview is given of the present understanding of the mechanisms involved in plasma-catalytic processes. In both parts (plasma-alone systems and plasma-catalysis), literature on the abatement of VOCs is reviewed in close detail. Special attention is given to the influence of critical process parameters on the removal process."

cited 138x Stroo, Hans F.; Leeson, Andrea; Marqusee, Jeffrey A.; Johnson, Paul C.; Ward, C. Herb; Kavanaugh, Michael C.; Sale, Tom C.; Newell, Charles J.; Pennell, Kurt D.; Lebrón, Carmen A.; Unger, Marvin (2012). "Chlorinated Ethene Source Remediation: Lessons Learned". Environmental Science & Technology. 46 (12): 6438–6447. Bibcode:2012EnST...46.6438S. doi:10.1021/es204714w. PMID 22558915. " A review is given. Chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) are widespread groundwater contaminants often released as dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). These contaminants are difficult to remediate, particularly their source zones. This paper summarizes the progress made in improving DNAPL source zone remediation over the past decade, and is structured to highlight the important practical lessons learned for improving DNAPL source zone remediation. Experience has shown that complete restoration is rare, and alternative metrics such as mass discharge are often useful for assessing the performance of partial restoration efforts. Experience also has shown that different technologies are needed for different times and locations, and that deliberately combining technologies may improve overall remedy performance. Several injection-based technologies are capable of removing a large fraction of the total contaminant mass, and reducing groundwater concentrations and mass discharge by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Thermal treatment can remove even more mass, but even these technologies generally leave some contamination in place. Research on better delivery techniques and characterization technologies will likely improve treatment, but managers should anticipate that source treatment will leave some contamination in place that will require future management. " --Smokefoot (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Industry Bias

This page reads as though it is biased by false and misleading information published by industrial users of PCE 76.119.108.221 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can identify false or misleading info, please do so. Editors here are very interested in presenting factual summary. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Particularly the Health and Safety section; not sure the "context" of other IARC carcinogens is necessary and seems to downplay the hazards associated with PCE without noting the likely legitimate reasons why hot beverages and red meat are also in the same IARC category as PCE (assuming they even are).

The information about carcinogenicity also seems very limited and maybe even outdated, and there are several sentences that rely on a single source to make a broad claim (e.g., "Exposure to tetrachloroethylene in a typical dry cleaning shop is considered far below the levels required to cause any risk." with a single source from one country). The preceding sentence, which says a study found that dry cleaning shop employees are exposed to an average of 59 ppm [presumably 8-hour TWA] would prove this sentence wrong in my U.S. state, where 0.042 ppm is the risk-based regulatory 8-hour TWA for PCE in industrial and commercial settings. Additionally, the cited study on PCE exposure in dry-cleaning operations observed an increase in certain cancers from that same study cohort, which is not mentioned in the Wikipedia summary and is clearly not supportive of the sentence that follows the extracted statement in the Wikipedia summary.

I am not sure what standards Wikipedia has for allowable sources, but I would think that the IARC Monograph for PCE, available to download online, would be a good source for additional study information as well as adverse health effects, as would U.S. EPA's Toxicological Review and IRIS summary (https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/&substance_nmbr=106) and the European Union's REACH factsheet page which includes additional information on the compound's hazards under the "Toxicological Information" tab (https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/14303/1/1) 76.119.108.221 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for registering your frustration or disagreement or whatever. Here are some responses:

• WIkipedia is not an instrument of the US or any country.
• It is easy to find tox/environmental concerns on the web. That kind of info is "everywhere", and all sorts of people want to discuss that stuff even when they have little expertise, often based on a hunch. Kinda makes sense to me too.
• But, and this is a big but: it can be difficult to find really good sources that meet Wilkipedia's WP:MEDRS standards.
• I will also risk to add that toxicology for potential chronic poisons is difficult to nail down. I suspect that PCE has been studied a great deal because it has been widely used for decades. Yet it is still used in some first world countries. Why is that? Incompetence? Conspiracy?... or maybe it is not that bad?

So, what happens is that many of these articles on chemicals focus on fairly accessible and noncontroversial technical info (which can appear as an "industry bias"): how stuff is manufactured, physical properties, apps. Having said all that, you are welcome to edit the article.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and for the record, upon further review of the edit history, it appears that most of the information that comes across as biased was added by the user Necatorina, who also deleted information that was accurately pulled from the cited studies by others. There is a pretty clear bias when an article cites portions of several studies that all reach similar conclusions, but the writer ignores their conclusions to cite another study which also does not reach the conclusion that they claim it does. I am not sure it needs to be edited if that user's changes are reversed. 76.119.108.221 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it not biased to use American-only recent studies? American instutions are biased against the chemical. A Necatorina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This chemical was also used on humans internally. Tetrachloroethylene was not something unknown when it was first introduced to dry cleaning. Stating that a chemical isn't as bad as media makes it seems like is not "industry bias". I edit this page because this chemical is of my personal interest, not some "industry bias". I have no relation to perc or dry cleaning industry. I am just interested in chlorinated solvents and I try to add whatever I find about them.

I don't really get why multiple editors come here and make edits about how bad PCE is by using USA-only references. This is what we call "biased". As I have noticed, USA institutions are biased against perc. Necatorina (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)