Talk:Acetic acid/Archive 1

Mistake with acetic acid picture?

Looks like the "http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d9/Acetic-acid.png" (acetic acid formula picture) needs another carbon atom.

It's okay. In organic structural formulas, symbols for carbon and attached hydrogens are usually omitted. That said, actually showing the CH3 on the left bond is not necessary. - (HS Chem Teacher)

I think that the picture still needs to be changed though, as it is misleading for these reasons:

• The hydrogen atom does not ionize by itself unless it is in an appropriate solvent, say, water. This should be indicated somewhere, perhaps this reaction with the solvent should be drawn explicitly in the diagram.
• The diagram depicts the resonace incorrectly - the negative charge does not reside on the carbon atom - rather it is "shared" between the two oxygen atoms. Either we draw an extra resonance diagram where it clearly shows how the charge bounces around the two oxygen atoms (along with the push arrows) or we enclose the whole ionized molecule in square brackets, and indicate a negative charge on the outside of it, like [CH3COO]- . What are your thoughts? HappyCamper 04:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather omit the resonance structure entirely since dissociation is a phenomenon of the acid dissolved in water, and does not occur to any real extent in the pure substance. We don't write the equilibrium H₂O ←→ OH^- + H⁺ for the picture of water on account of the one part in 10^-7 that is dissociated at pH 7. Shimmin 11:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Quite true, the resonance is only required provided that the dissociation occurs, and there is no reason why we should assume that the molecule is in water anyway. It could be in, say, methanol! In that case, I think we should just settle for the typical picture of acetic acid, without the dissociation illustrated. HappyCamper 14:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acetic acid's solubility

Is acetic acid lipid(oil) soluble? If yes, is the partition oil/water coefficient known?

• this depends very strongly on the identity of the oil.

GILLIGANS ISLAND... the actual formula for acetic acid is much deeper then it seems. wen crossing over the binary compunds must use the valence number of the electronegative side.

Name

As the official name for the acid is now Ethanoic acid, shouldn't we change everything around to reflect this? i.e. change the main article to ethanoic acid and make acetic acid a redirect, and change all the references around?

• No (sarcasm) chemist calls it "Ethanoic Acid" outside of the intro organic chemistry lecture hall.

• • I haven't heard it called "ethanoic acid" even in the lecture hall. Our naming convention (Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things) is to use the name that is commonly used, over the name that (even a well-respected governing body) feels should be commonly used. Shimmin 22:17, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• That's not true - I haven't heard it called acetic acid for years. The substance is ethanoic acid. That's its name. I agree with the original poster. Match March 4, 2005

I have never called it acetic acid. It is not something that one comes across in everyday use such as water, and therefore the systematic name that one learns at school (ethanoic acid) tends to stick. However I agree that acetic is probably still more common than ethanoic; I went to school in the 1990s and probably older generations did not use ethanoic to the same extent. Booshank (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From the preamble to IUPAC's 1993 nomenclature recommendations:

In contrast to such systematic names, there are traditional names, semisystematic or trivial, which are widely used for a core group of common compounds. Examples are "acetic acid", "benzene", "cholesterol", "styrene", "formaldehyde", "water", "iron". Many of these names are also part of general nonscientific language and are thus not confined to use within the science of chemistry. They are useful, and in many cases indispensable (consider the alternative systematic name for cholesterol, for example). Little is to be gained, and certainly much to be lost, by replacing such names. Therefore, where they meet the requirements of utility and precision, and can be expected to continue to be widely used by chemists and others, they are retained and, for the most part, preferred in this Guide.

When the governing body that recommends a system of nomenclature acknowledges that for some compounds, their systematic name has failed to displace, and insofar as the future is forseeable will continue to fail to displace, the traditional name, and is OK with that, it seems foolish to promote that system of nomenclature more zealously than the governing body itself. Shimmin 14:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • That's fair enough - I've always been taught ethanoic acid over acetic and have been told off by chemistry teachers for using it, so from my experience the point was valid. I still think we should switch to ethanoic acid but never mind. Match

If you follow the link to IUPAC nomenclature it mentions eth- as the valid prefix and not ace-. I have always been taught ethanoic acid.

Ethanoic acid is the systematic name. What the excerpt quoted from the IUPAC guide above says, however, is that for some substances, there exists a deeply entrenched non-systematic name that the systematic name has mostly failed to displace, and that in such cases, IUPAC does not insist that the systematic name be used. It specifically mentions acetic acid as an example of such a substance. Shimmin 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The dissociation structure with the delocalized negative charge should have a minus sign written in to demonstrate the conservation of charge.

Do we want to include dimeric acetic acid (hydrogen-bonded) since acetic acid is dimeric in soluo?

Grand

Such a grand article on such a grand subject. Acetic'^Acid 14:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review of this article

It took me a while to find this so I'm adding the link here- this article is undergoing peer review at this location, in preparation for it becoming a featured article. Please add your constructive criticism. Walkerma 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference, Martin, the link is always included in the big header on top of the talk page indicating that the article in on peer review. Wim van Dorst 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

Production figures

Thanks to the editor who corrected the production figures: 5 Mt/a seems more plausible than the 2 Mt/a quoted in Chem. Eng. News. Physchim62 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Although it was previously indicated 'over 2 Mt/a', the (probably?) US figure alone was indeed misleading. I also have good data now on Uses. If only I had 30 hours in a day. Wim van Dorst 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Abbreviation

We're close to a revert war over the question of the correct abbreviation for acetic acid! Some say AcOH, others say HAc. My preference is for AcOH, based on the following IUPAC source: Ac is the abbreviation for acetyl not acetate. Physchim62 08:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC) (ducks to avoid opposing fire...)

AcH is a common abbreviation for acetaldehyde. Those wishing to convince themselves of this may google for '"acetic acid" AcH' and find that the first several hits all use the abbreviation AcH for acetaldehyde rather than acetic acid. Shimmin 12:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• HAc is, in my humble opinion, the common abbreviation for acetic acid (suggesting hydrogen acetate). The Ac abbreviation for this is even noted on the acetate wikipage, whereas no such abbreviation is mentioned on the acetyl page. HAc notation is also in line with the inorganic terminology for monoprotic acids, such as HCl, and HNO₃. The AcOH abbreviation in the this context wrongly suggests an alkaline instead of acidic behaviour.
  • (checks q:Karl von Clausewitz...) the abbreviation is mentioned on Acetyl, and Acetate has a {{disputed}} notice on it! Physchim62 18:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• And it does happen that my personal experience is in line with the HAc as the common abbreviation (and never used/seen AcOH for this purpose).
• The ref of PC is about ligands only. I admit that for indicating the Acetyl as ligand in an organic structure, there is no acetate ligand, hence no abbreviation for it. But the text HAc is here about an abbreviation for the whole compound, to indicate its acidic nature.
• The AcH is not in question here, whether it indicates another chemical or not.
• :-) shooting while ducking, and rolling like 007 behind a wall to wart off flaming rebuttal, albeit not afraid a some firm standpoint. Wim van Dorst 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

After PC's stab here (just kidding, PC), I can only follow the Dalai Lama and practise compassion: how about adding both abbreviations to the text? Wim van Dorst.

• Done! That saves us having to buy Martin a Blue Helmet! Physchim62 20:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have an Organic chemistry M.S. degree. My experience among organic chemists is Ac stands for acetyl group (CH₃CO-) and OAc (or AcO) is for an acetate group (CH₃COO-); the acetate ion (CH₃COO^-) is abbreviated as OAc^- or AcO^- ; acetic acid is HOAc or AcOH. Although I've seen a couple of analytical/inorganic chemists use HAc for acetic acid and Ac^- for acetate, organic chemists I've seen remark on this tend to regard such guys with a bit of skepticism as if they don't pay attention to the fine detail of doing things correctly.
H Padleckas 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention it both ways. :-/ H Padleckas 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• We do, don't we? That has been decided 15 october Wim van Dorst 01:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

Dialects

On Sept. 25, 2005, User:Wayward did an edit that changed an article written with U.S. spellings to one written with British spellings. My impression was that this sort of thing was frowned upon. Shimmin 12:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The diff is here. What is worse is that there may be some spelling mistakes, as not all spellings in -ise are acceptable in British English! I would assume WP:FAITH, as the same user has also edited articles British → U.S., e.g. White gold: maybe they were just trying to have a consistent spelling throughout the article (which is WikiPolicy). You can always ask at the talk page or vote on the request for adminship... Physchim62 12:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My preference is decidedly for consistency. So would any of the native English speakers be so kind to comb the articles for erroneous -ize/-ise and -our/-or variations, and improve the text to the requested high standard? (PS. I saw the change, and did frown upon it. I hesitantly accepted it for a consistency improvement beyond my expertise). Wim van Dorst 17:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC).

By the time I did a final copy-edit, the article was almost entirely in British English (I found one "vapor" to change to "vapour"). Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As you suspected, User:Wayward did indeed make the spelling more "British" than even current British practice. OED prefers dimerize, crystallize, civilization, commercialize, oxidize, polymerize, and utilize, but also catalyse and practise. OED prefers odour, colour and vapour, but also malodorous. Shimmin 17:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Related

I just figured you should check this out, considering the article name. Karmafist 21:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments for footnotes

Text moved from the article proper:

How to add a footnote:

  NOTE: Footnotes in this article use names, not numbers. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes for details.
    1) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9. 
    2) Add the macro [1] to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote.
    3) Take note of the name of the footnote that immediately precedes yours in the article body. 
    4) Add #^  to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step 3.  No need to re-number anything!
    5) Multiple footnotes to the same reference: see Wikipedia:Footnotes for a how-to.
  NOTE: It is important to add footnotes in the right order in the list!

I moved this text out of the article as it would there only add dead weight, which I think is not the way to do it. Wim van Dorst 20:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Use in dye

Martin, it wasn't an error in your text that said that acetic acid was used as a solvent in the manufacture of indigo dye: it was an intentional addition by me to adjust your statement in the first place. Actually, I can't find any corroboration that either acetic acid, or more lower in the text monochloroacetic acid (MCA), is used in the production of indigo dye, not as raw material nor as solvent. Could you please check your reference about this? If the application is (was?) really as large as you indicate, I would have expected to have read about it in my CEH documentation, even if it were merely as a solvent. Wim van Dorst 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

I suspect that the 3000 tons of HOAc were chlorinated to MCA then converted to indigo. The BASF synthesis (1897) goes phthalimide + NaOCl gives anthranilic acid. Anthranilic acid + MCA gives HOOC-C6H4-NH-CH2COOH, which upon treatment with alkali gives indoxyl. In air indoxyl forms indigo blue. The improved Hoechst process (1901) goes aniline + MCA gives phenylglycine, which is treated with NaOH then NaNH2 to give indoxyl. I was planning on writing this synthesis up as part of the support material for the acetic acid article anyway. What do your sources give as the synthesis of indigo?

The Martin book is 1917. I have Perkins "Organic Chemistry" from 1922 in my lap, and it states three uses, "(Anhydrous) acetic acid is largely used in chemistry laboratories, and in the manufacture of organic dyes (my emphasis), as well as for the preparation of many acetates...(meaning metal acetates). In 1922/1917 there was no PVA or PET, but indigo was big business - and glacial acetic acid was not such a major commodity then.

I located my more modern source on indigo, Wittcoff & Reuben, Industrial Organic Chemicals in Perspective, Part 2, p450-451, Wiley, 1980. It mentions the $2 million invested in 1897 by BASF to develop their process, "an enormous sum for those days." That implies that synthetic indigo was an important product at that time. The book states that the Hoechst process is "still in use," and since the book is mainly focussed on current production, not history, that carries the implication that the Hoechst sodamide process was the main process used in 1980. Unfortunately this book is poor at describing the uses of acetic acid itself. I will post more info here tomorrow when I'm at work and can consult other books. Walkerma 03:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE. In Tedder, Nechvatal & Jubb, Basic Organic Chemistry, Part 5: Industrial products, Wiley, 1975, page 65 it lists the end uses of acetic acid ("in the USA in 1970") as follows – Cellulose acetate 44%, Vinyl acetate monomer 31%, Solvent esters 14%, Chloroacetic acid 3% (my emphasis), Others 8%. Since your company makes chloroacetic acid, can you find what it is used for these days? Based on Wittcoff & Reuben I'd guess that in 1970 some of that went into making indigo. I've also worked a little with chloroacetyl chloride in the synthesis of a major drug intermediate, I suspect pharma is a major end use these days.

A final (hopefully) review observation

Overall: Outstanding, although just a trifle long. I restrained myself from adding more material than I did. In addition to my above remark on HOAc and HAc:

In the following chemical reaction images, the reviewing chemists know what the reactants and products are from their structures, but this may not be obvious to the average non-technical reader trying to learn about these things. I'm thinking of modifying the images to add some labels below some of the most important products in the reactions and then re-uploading the images back onto Wikimedia.

• Deprotonation of acetic acid equilibrium in water

• Two typical oganic reactions of acetic acid

• Condensation of acetic acid to actetic anhydride

H Padleckas 01:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This can rather easily be fixed. Let's go on to FAC. H Padleckas 01:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There it goes: FAC now!

Wim van Dorst 19:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC). And FA. Wim van Dorst 14:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

Picture locations

On screens wide enough to bring the frozen acetic acid pictures up against the bottom of the infobox, the new picture locations produce an undesirable gap in the text. Was there some equally undesirable phenomonon occurring in their old location? Shimmin 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On my (laptop, so small) screen the page looks much better since the move, because the text is not so broken up. Is this the problem you mention likely to be common or not? Walkerma 02:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The two pictures of frozen acetic acid are put before the history section paragraph beginning "In the Rennaissance..." At 1024 px, or narrower if the font is small, the infobox is still taking up the right side of the page at this point in the text, but the pictures of glacial acetic acid also request to be on the right side of the page.

The source of the problem is that we have a lot of things that want to be at the right-hand side of the screen, and if the the font is small or the screen is wide, the point in the text where they appear is reached before the right side is clear, and so either the text or the images appear in a suboptimal location.

IE handles the problem by moving the text, opening up a blank space in the text, so that this paragraph is pushed below the bottom of the infobox, but the associated images do appear to the right of the paragraph. Firefox moves the images instead, and the text appears uninterrupted, but not next to the images. This isn't so much a problem with these images, since the text doesn't really need them at any given point, but would be a problem if the images were actually relevant to the history text.

If I use a smaller font, (and presumably also if I had a screen wider than 1024 px), the cyclic dimer and chemical reactions images are similarly pushed away from their associated text in Firefox, or gaps open up in IE. Shimmin 15:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed everybody with a relatively wide (1024 wide?? I'm at 1920 now) screen have these uncouth text breaks and oddly moving pictures. I took the liberty to revert some picture movals, essentially moving two back to where PC put them in the first place. This solves on narrow screens (actually wide with very large letters) and on wide screens (tiny font on 1920px) the odd effects. Martin, can you live with this? Wim van Dorst 20:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

Looks just fine on my little laptop screen! Walkerma 21:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Related chemicals vs related compounds duplication

I notice we now have a "related chemicals" section which duplicates our more usual "related compounds" section that we have on our standard chembox. Do we want to have this info twice? Or should we stick with our standard format? Walkerma 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The See also section is meant as a quick jumper to related articles. It is a standardized format throughout the Wikipedia project and it is the first place where people look for related articles. All links from the new See also section can be found in the text and are therefore intentionally duplicated. There is no guideline against this practice and it increases usability. A clear keep for all mentioned lists. Cacycle 11:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it, I agree it increases usability. I just thought I'd better ask the question. Walkerma 20:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Spectroscopic information

Is it possible to add spectroscopic information about acetic acid to this article, or would that be going a bit overboard? --HappyCamper 18:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to Acetic acid (data page). Shimmin 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put in IR, MS, 1H and 13C NMR spectral info into the supp. table, using the SDBS spectral database. Does anyone have access to decent UV data? NIST is poor on this compound. Thanks for pointing out this problem, HappyCamper. Walkerma 07:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

λ_max = 207 nm in the gas phase: Orlando, John J.; Tyndall, Geoffrey S. (2003). "Gas phase UV absorption spectra for peracetic acid, and for acetic acid monomers and dimers." J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 157, 161–66. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful!! I love this article :-) --HappyCamper 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is 'a' the best abbreviation for year as in 'Mt/a'?

Please see discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style: Is 'a' the best abbreviation for year as in 'Mt/a'?. Bobblewik 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EU HazMat classification

Sorry, I goofed on the link I tried to put in my recent edit comment. According to Directive_67/548/EEC#Classification_of_dangerous_substances, there is a C-Corrosive classification, but neither that nor any of the others classifications appear to mention acidic. Therefore I reverted the recent and anonymous addition of "and acidic" to the corrosive classification in the infobox. I mention it here to catch the eye of any experts who may know better – I'm not one of you. -- Kbh3rd 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right, though User:Physchim62 is our expert on this topic. I think the edit was well-intentioned, but "acidic" is not a standard EU term. Walkerma 19:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the official term is Corrosive, which covers both acids and alkalis, or specifically those preparations whose pH is ≤2 or ≥11.5. The classification is associated with the R-Phrase {{R35}} if skin damage occurs in less than three minutes, or with {{R34}} if the skin damage occurs in less than four hours. Official EU classifications may be found on the site of the European Chemicals Bureau (which is one reason why we use them, they're easily accessible and verifiable). Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

congratulations!

My congratulations to all the people who have contributed to acetic acid, todays featured article V8rik 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, It resulted in well over 200 edits, effectively adding just a few °F entries and some small text edits. Only one was IMHO an improvement: a spelling error correction. Wim van Dorst 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC).

"Use as solvent" link

I noticed that the link for "above" in the first line of the "Use as solvent" subsection does not seem to work. I assume this should redirect to the Solvent subsection under "Chemical Properties". Does anyone know how to make this work? A couple of possible solutions:

• Increase the level (I don't know if "level" is the right word) of the headings under Chemical Properties (e.g. like the level of subsection headings for the Applications section)
• Redirect to the chemical properties section instead

--GregRM 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. During the peer review someone downgraded the section headings to bold text, and this link was lost. I've done what you suggest, it now links to chem properties. Walkerma 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vinyl acetate monomer reaction

The recent edits to the vinyl acetate monomer section brought my attention to the balancing of the reaction. Is hydrogen gas produced as well? If so, perhaps this should be included in the reaction equation.--GregRM 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've balanced it now. It was done in an "organic chem" style, we often don't balance equations, but the missing oxygen rendered that very confusing! It's based on the Wacker process (see Acetic_acid#Ethylene_oxidation), it will form acetaldehyde. This has an enol form (vinyl alcohol) which can then form its ester, vinyl acetate; or it may well go directly to the ester, I'm not sure. Thanks, Walkerma 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Most widely produced?

The section "Production" contains the claim This makes it [acetic acid] the most widely produced acid in the world. Does it mean, produced in the most locations? If so that is probably true but only if we include non-synthetic(vinegar) production, whilst ignoring non-synthetic production of of other acids. In any case one would ordinarily understand it to mean that acetic acid has the greatest industrial/commercial tonnage produced annually. However, that isn't even close; at least sulphuric, nitric and hydrochloric acids have an order of magnitude greater production. Possibly it was meant that it is the most widely produced organic acid, but I don't know if that is the case so for the moment I'm removing it. -- Securiger 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. It wasn't in the article when it was made a featured article. Walkerma 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

fats

I was wondering how can it be a fatty acid if it is not found in any natural lipids.

Onion mention.

See [2], Betsy Anderson, Production Assistant comment. --Neutrality^talk 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Formula??

I've also seen the formula as CH3C(O)OH. Which is correct? Ruff ^{Bark away!} 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All are similar, your CH3C(O)OH adds the info that the O is a side-group from the 'main chain' .. though noone would mistake CH3COOH for a peroxide, the OOH notation is used for peroxides. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical formula

The listed formula is given as C₂H₃O₂, which is actually the formula for the negatively charged ion acetate. The correct formula should have a hydrogen atom in front of the formula for acetate: HC₂H₃O₂—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.168.174.232 (talk • contribs).

Where does the incorrect formula appear? I skimmed the article and did not notice the incorrect formula you mentioned. Thanks.--GregRM 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Greg, I can't see the error anywhere. The formula you mention is rarely used in my experience - I've only seen it used in cases when students have not yet learnt organic chemistry, but they need to show an acidic hydrogen. I prefer the formula as it is given in the infobox, which follows the Hill system. Walkerma 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem has already been corrected. I don't have an issue with the formula given in the infobox as opposed to mine. It is probably more accurate anyway. Thank you.

Indigo and Acetic Acid

Okay, recently in my Chemistry class, we did a reaction that allows us to produce indigo dye and involved glacial acetic acid. I feel that it needs mentioning in the article under Applications, but I fear that my edits won't be up to FA quality, and I don't have any supporting sources, not yet at least. This is what I have so far:

Indigo Production

In the past century, glacial acetic acid has become important in the prouction of synthetic indigo. In 1897, the first feasible reaction on an industrial scale was perfected, allowing this once hard to obtain dye to be widely available, and is the dye used in making blue jeans their distinct color. The process involves the mixing of various chemicals, such as glacial acetic acid, o-nitrobenzaldehyde, sulfuric acid, dimethyl thionate, sodium hydroxide, and acetone in a specific and fairly complex sequence that will result in indigo, which must be converted into leucoindigo before being introduced into the fabric to be dyed, and will quickly revert back into normal indigo. This is a fairly well known reaction, and is done as a basic intro to organic compounds in high school science labs.

If I can get my hands on the sheet, I can detail the process and provide a bit of sourcing, but I think it still needs more work than that. Can you guys give me a hand here? Also, I can provide a picture of the effects of it. I have some socks I dyed with the dye I made. --RockMaster 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I only just saw this - sorry! Indigo manufacture does get a mention (I know, I added it!) in the history section - see the final sentence. I will try to look at this after exams are over (3 weeks or so), feel free to remind me if I forget. I have some books on industrial chemistry. I don't think it warrants the level of detail you go into - but maybe a sentence could be added here. Acetic acid is such an important solvent and acid, you could find 50 other important products where it plays an important role (e.g., we do a lab at my college converting camphene to isobornyl acetate using acetic acid - part of an industrial process for making camphor from turpentine). However we should look at all the things covered here - indigo in particular, and make sure this synthesis is included, because historically it was very important. Walkerma 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Walkerma 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Molecular Formula

Very small point but where it says molecular formula what is actually put is the linear formula, molecular formula contain only the number of atoms in a compound, not the arrangement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.39.253 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

-ise or -ize?

This article uses -ize spellings (ie. recognized, civilization) for the first few paragraphs, and then goes in a transition to using -ise endings (ie. synthesised, oxidised). Note that the use of -yse endings such as those in catalyse is the only spelling acceptable in any form of British English; whether it is (Standard) British English (using -ise), or Oxford English (using -ize). Although both -ise and -ize are acceptable for use in an article using British English, you can't start with one spelling system in the introduction and then change for the rest of it, as this article currently does (it is especially unacceptable in a Featured Article!).

It could be argued that using -ise endings is preferable as the first revisions of this article use British spellings such as colourless, so using Standard British English would be more legitimate. This is what the admin previously did to standardise the page's spelling.

However, as the study of chemistry is international - best shown by using the spellings of aluminium but also sulfur - I would personally favour using Oxford English. This is the spelling which international organisations such as the UN use, and is viewed by many as a sort of compromise between Standard Br. English and Standard Am. English. It is also the version of English used by the UK's most authoritative publisher, Oxford University Press, the largest university press in the world, and publisher of the world's most authoritative dictionary.

The section above discussing whether British English or American English should be used is inconclusive with this and in some ways incorrect (current Br. English spelling practice favours -ise despite OED's stance, and there aren't any spelling mistakes in the edit made), so I thought it would be worth bringing up this issue to finalise it and choose which style of Br. English to use.

Swedish fusilier (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article was promoted to FA on 13 November 2005, over two years ago. It definitely needs some LTC and grooming. I'll give it a short brush, and make it consistent spelling again. IIRC, it is in non-OED Br-Eng, although my personal favourite is also Ox-Eng. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
• I did the general cleanup of the article, but I'm not sure about the appropriate spelling. I might just as well have been OED spelling after all. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
• . Yep, it is now consistenly in OED. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Still needs cleanup

Lots of weasel words, vague language in places, language too prosaic for an encyclopedia entry elsewhere. Many points are repeated a number of times; related points are not grouped together.

Poor quality for a featured article.

71.241.81.221 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article has been Featured for over two years. FA required have significantly altered in that timeframe. Your improvement proposals will be highly appreciated. Feel free to augment the article as you deem appropriate, preferably from a personalized account for optimal communication. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Expansion on freezing?

I have definitely heard before that acetic acid expands on freezing. Why then is a higher density given for the solid phase than for the liquid? Are these accurate figures? http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/acglac.htm Bbi5291 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 careful 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) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

References

• [3]
• doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)71632-2
• [4]--Stone (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Solid?

Can an acid be a solid at room temperature? As an example, salt and vinegar-flavored potato chips use distilled white vinegar that has been evaporated into a powder. But neither the acid article nor the acetic acid article mention that an acid can be a powder at room temperature. Can we get some clarification about this ab toh articles? Badagnani (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an acid be a solid at room temperature? Yes, it behaves somewhat like water with a melting point much closer to room temperature (16.5 °C). However, that is true only works for more or less pure, water-free acetic acid, not for vinegar. That potato-chip evaporated vinegar just means that all acetic acid and water has been removed from the vinegar, leaving behind aroma compounds and other goo that was dissolved in it. Cacycle (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the vinegar was already distilled, which compounds would those be? The flavor is extremely strong. Badagnani (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course this would not make sense with distilled vinegar. It is actually the leftover waste from producing distilled vinegar. Cacycle (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sodium acetate page says "Sodium acetate is the chemical that gives salt and vinegar chips (crisps) their flavor." However, this ingredient is not listed in the ingredient list. Thus, does that mean that dehydrating distilled white vinegar produces this socium compound? Badagnani (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the food industry calls sodium acetate dehydrated vinegar. It certainly makes it sound less "chemical" and more edible. :) If they literally mean dehydrated, then dehydrated vinegar is basically acetic acid, which is liquid at room temperature. However, even though chips look "dry", they still can have some liquid absorbed. Especially if you consider how strong concentrated acetic acid smells, I guess you would only need a drop or two per bag of chips to give them flavor! --Itub (talk)

Sodium acetate, when evaporated with an excess of acetic acid, forms a fairly stable diacetate: NaH(CH₃COO)₂. When evaporated from aqueous solution, sodium acetate crystallizes with three moles of water (trihydrate), the "diacetate" crystallizes with two moles of water and one mole of acetic acid. Sodium diacetate is the flavoring agent used in "salt and vinegar" foods. Norm Reitzel (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ka at Equilibrium Inclusion

If there are no objections we should include the Equilibrium Ka value on the table on the right side. ka = 1.8*10∧-5.Moadeeb 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moadeeb (talk • contribs)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, per consensus and common sense Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Acetic acid → Ethanoic acid — The article should be at the correct IUPAC name. 75.15.161.185 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. "Acetic acid" is the common name (see WP:COMMONNAME) and the IUPAC preferred name. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The IUPAC preferred name is ethanoic acid, not acetic acid. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Acetic acid is the preferred IUPAC name and the "retained name". -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To substitute a common name which is used everywhere by a systematic one should be avoided.--Stone (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in concurrence with opinions above. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is targeted at a general audience, and acetic acid is the most regular name used by the general audience to refer to the substance. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Wikipedia uses common names over IUPAC names, e.g. Caffeine not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione as an example at WP:COMMONNAME. –CWenger (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- Wikipedia prefers common names, and the IUPAC prefers this retained name over the systematic one. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Google scholar search for publications with ethanoic acid in the title published after 2000 gives 31 hits
• Google scholar search for publications with acetic acid in the title published after 2000 gives 6990 hits

For me this looks like even the scientists do not like the name. --Stone (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the common name takes precedence over the IUPAC name here, why is the reverse true at aluminum? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NO! The common name is the preferred name of IUPAC and of scientists! --Stone (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because that is not a dispute between the common name and a systematic one, but between the British and American spellings of the same common name. It's not the same thing at all. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

British hijacking everything

I understand it drives the brits batshit for a population of 308 million to have a predominent spelling over a population of 60mil (about 120million if you include the rest of the western colonies and austrailia) but could you at least have the american measurements off to the side? Im getting pretty annoyed about having our measurements not even in a box to the right on some pages >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you would like to see changed? The article already includes, for example, °F next to °C (in most places ... I added a few more). Anything else? 71.185.49.174 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Biochemistry by design?

May I suggest a change in the biochemistry section from the following sentence: "However, the concentration of free acetic acid in cells is kept at a low level to avoid disrupting the control of the pH of the cell contents." To the following (or something similar): "However, the concentration of free acetic acid in cells is kept at a low level, with the result that it has little influence on the pH of cell contents." I don't want to get into a Creationism versus Darwinism debate, but whichever way you look at it, the original sentence is a bit teleological and claims a mechanism of which we cannot be certain. We can't be sure that God's motive in arraning for low levels of free acetic acid was because He was concerned about pH, nor can we be sure that the mechanisms by which free acetate is kept low were the result of evolutionary pressure from acidification of the cell contents. There might be other reasons why the evolution of such mechanisms was favoured, not connected with pH. I know it's a minor nit-picky point, but this article is currently rated as a show-case of the very best Wikipedia can achieve, and woolly teleological statements in biology can be very harmful; teleology should be discouraged (but please, no offence intended to the original author). 149.155.96.5 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Who invented this abbreviation?

When I was on the page for ethanoic acid, I read that it is „commonly“ abbreviated as Ac. I am not against the abbreviated of majuscule A & minuscule c [a very nice & convenient abbreviation if you ask me,] but accoding to scientific rules of chemical nomenclature, an abbreviation of a chemical shall only contain elements, not compounds. There is even an interesting category of the naming of chemicals. Throughout my study of chemistry, I have never encountered exceptions to these rules [nor have I ever encountered the abbreviation of Ac, except only for the element 89. All I am asking if you can please provide with a reliable reference to your claim, say an updated book that includes & describes the abbreviation.

Also, if it is not too much to ask can you also [anyone] fix the synonyms for the page Acetic anhydride. Ethyl_acetate, [though the chemical structure to acetic acid], is not the synonym for acetate anhydride. So, „Ethanoyl ethanoate“ is not the synonym for Acetate anhydride. As you can read by the chemical name itself, the suffix „-ide“ [being a single atom anion] is not the same as „-ate“ [being a polyatomic anion.] Then again, you can reference back to the derivative of acetic acid, acetate & argue the same. So, please: All I ask for everyone in Wikipedia is not to edit Wikipedia without assurance of reliable information, which means everyone needs to do their job to research before editing the page. Use the playground to carry out any mischievous experiments. Thank you.

序名三「Jyonasan」 ^Talk_Stalk 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

You must not have spent much time in the field if you have never encountered such abbreviations. These abbreviations (Me, Et, Pr, Bu, Ac, etc.) are widely used, and are accepted by custom, if not by some IUPAC rule. If I can find a list of such abbreviations I will use it to reference the article, but what we have is correct.

Where is "ethyl acetate" in acetic anhydride? Ethanoyl ethanoate would be the equivalent for acetic acetate, using systematic nomenclature. Not pretty, but it's fine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly outdated information

The section "Production" shows the distribution of global production by method as of 2005 (as can be seen from the reference article). 6 years have gone, it's considerable time. Could someone update the information? Thanks in advance! I'm sorry for previously incorrectly set question. The information appears to be much newer than I thought.
The pKa for the compound is slightly off. It should be adjusted to 4.7447. --46.109.99.15 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (edited by myself)

--46.109.99.15 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that (I am somewhat skeptical about this high accuracy)? Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient citations

This article is lacking citations in many parts. There should be at least one citation for every paragraph. Most of the sections in this article does not fulfill that criteria. The Chemical reactions section has only one citation. Ethylene oxidation and Vinyl acetate monomer have zero. There are numerous other places where citation is needed, but not provided. These issues need to be fixed in order for the article to maintain its FA status.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Acetic acid as a glass cleaner

Acetic acid is also used as a glass cleaner, both commercially and in many DIY formulations made with vinegar and dish detergent. For example, Bullseye Glass http://www.bullseyeglass.com/pdf/other_tech/glass_cleaning_basics.pdf recommends Spartan 3060 as a cleaner which won't leave streaks on fused glass http://www.bullseyeglass.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=178. Spartan's MSDF http://www.spartanchemical.com/spartan/msds/USA/English/3060.pdf provides its approximate formulation (Isopropanol, Acetic acid and nonionic detergent, used diluted 1:20). Note: this is not an Ad, just an illustration with examples. Streaks remaining on glass after thermal fusing are a significant issue with cleaner selection. PS. I don't contribute much, couldn't get <refs> to come out right. JamesBowlin (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that SLS (sodium lauryl sulfate) and similar detergents are in more common use for cleaning glassware in laboratories than cleaning mixtures, where chemically-active residues are not wanted. David Spector (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo of a plastic bottle?

Why is there a photo of a plastic bottle with a clear liquid in it? What does it teach us about acetic acid?

It teaches us that the solution is colorless, of course. I like the image. If there is a better image for suggesting other properties, such as acidity and odor, please suggest it. David Spector (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Organic chemistry section

Aside from Fischer esterification, there is a distinct lack of organic chemistry within that subsection. Condensation and thermal decomposition reactions are not inherently organic type reactions. Moreover, what is meant by the OH group being the main site of reaction? Anyone who knows the reaction mechanisms for the described reactions, will know that the ketone group is the first to be attacked in most cases, the hydroxyl group is only involved in the final water elimination step. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

An article in the Readers' Digest (online version) suggests many health benefits

The article is linked here: [5] It is not credited and I would suggest that it is not written by anyone with knowledge of the properties of cider vinegar. It suggests that it is a panacea. The fact that these views are being spread suggests that the Wikipedia article should aim to support or deny these claims. I'm not a doctor really, so I can't do it. (Yes I know I could cite sources and use third-party information, I was being humorous) Is there someone who can? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen acetate

Why is hydrogen acetate (HC₂H₃O₂) not listed as a way to write acetic acid? Piguy101 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because chemists never use that term and we do not want to induce naive readers to adopt such a practice. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention

It's a very minor point as the two words are synonyms, but shouldn't this be under the title "ethanoic acid" with acetic acid given as an alternative? Whilst we all know what acetic acid is, ethanoic acid has been the correct term in all scientific works for a good many decades. Just as we now use ethanol and methanol rather than ethyl and methyl alcohol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.126 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would second this motion and seek to reassert its point (as a year has passed). The IUPAC naming conventions would give its name as ethanoic acid; as these are the international standards, surely this should be the title with acetic acid mentioned as an alternative and a reroute. Tory88 (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The IUPAC naming convention that gives Acetic acid was 1993, this has surely been superceeded by the 2004 one that gives the systematic name ethanoic acid? The article should be moved to this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.135 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the sidebar make a distinction between "systematic name" and "IUPAC name", but then both of them link to the same article, which mentions "systematic name" just once, defining it to be "IUPAC name"?

Totally confusing. Label "acetic acid" as "previous IUPAC name", "everyday name", "trivial name", "common name" or make them equal-value synonyms, but don't distinguish "systematic name" from "IUPAC name" while saying that they are the same. I had to come to the talk page to understand what was going on. 84.227.250.30 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Photographic film?

What are we going to do with these multiple references to photographic film? That market has disappeared with the snows of yesteryear, and this article is now dated. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Acetic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.lsdiv.harvard.edu/pdf/evans_pKa_table.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/FoodAdditiveListings/ucm091048.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acetic acid. 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/20150207065434/http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/attiksyra_eng.htm to http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/attiksyra_eng.htm

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) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acetic acid. 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/20130630134041/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/FullText.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/FullText.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dimer in crystals

"In solid acetic acid, the molecules form pairs (dimers), being connected by hydrogen bonds." The 1958 ref. talks about endles chains. Conflict? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Until someone digs up the Xray paper, I will fix this problem by making the statement more ambiguous. Not ideal but better than risking being wrong. Gas-phase probably is dimer. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Miscible is incorrectly used here.

Under fixed conditions, two substances are either miscible or not. It is a binary property: yes or no. There is NO SUCH THING as "partially miscible". The definition is: two substances which are soluble in one-another in ANY proportions are miscible. This is high school chemical terminology. This article uses the term incorrectly. Two substances which are not totally miscible have a range (or ranges) of solubility - not of miscibility. (It is possible, and not even that uncommon, for two materials to have a range of miscibility when considering temperature (or possibly pressure). But that is not how the term is being used here.)40.142.191.32 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I presume you are refering to the sentence "With higher alkanes (starting with octane), acetic acid is not completely miscible, and its miscibility declines with longer n-alkanes." The Encyclopædia Britannica defines partial miscibilty as essentially the same as ranges of solubility, so I don't think this is a valid complaint. Also, high-school chemistry is usually over-simplified. User:GKFX^talk 08:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree: Miscibility is indeed a binary property, the two liquids are either miscible or they are not. Otherwise virtually every pair of liquids are mutually "partially miscible", which is unhelpful and says nothing. My view is supported by IUPAC https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/MT07230. Britannica is a wonderful source, but IUPAC is more authoritative.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and have adjusted the article text to more accurately use the terminology. User:GKFX^talk 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR184.1005 should be referenced in this article.

Acetic acid as defined by the Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR184.1005. [6]DextroseIsCornSugar (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Diformaldehyde" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Diformaldehyde. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Diformaldehyde until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference between Acetic Acid and the acetyl group

The sentences " In biochemistry, the acetyl group, derived from acetic acid, is fundamental to all forms of life. When bound to coenzyme A, it is central to the metabolism of carbohydrates and fats." is superfluous or at least should mention that one of the most important components central to neuromuscular transmission is acetylcholine. On the other hand, there is already an article discussing the acetyl group to which this article could be linked.GaryD144 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The second simplest carboxylic acid

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead describes acetic acid as "the second simplest carboxylic acid (after formic acid)." Does carbonic acid not count as a carboxylic acid (even though it is listed here), a methyl group counts as more simple than a hydroxyl group (although according to PubChem, the complexity of carbonic acid is 26.3, while the complexity of formic acid is only 10.3), or is just a simple mistake that should be fixed? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And there is also Chloroformic acid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If Formaldehyde is "the simplest of a class of functional groups called aldehydes" then, in like manner, by substituting Hydrogen for the 'R', acetic acid would be the third in line.GaryD144 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox needs fixing

The ChEMBL section has a big fat red X next to it. Someone who knows his or her stuff should have a look at it. Avengah (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The abbreviation AcO does not make sense. It should be AcH and AcOH in that box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.205.129 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As a USA chemist, I've never encountered the abbreviation AcOH. It is, here, always HOAc. The infobox entry should either list both (if anyone can justify AcOH) or simply list it as HOAc. {note in added proof: the first book I grabbed, Principles of Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Hamill et al., 1966, pg 268, uses HOAc to represent the undissociated acid. (and I'm certain there are many others I can cite.} I should also note the abbreviation MeCOOH also represents it.207.155.85.22 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Related Compounds

I was struck by the inclusion of this in the infobox. The *real* list of "related" compounds is enormous - and even limiting the list to economically or chemically important compounds would be 100's if not 1000's. I question its utility here. Why no mention of acetates of significance (the plastics, the medicines, the salts (some of which are mentioned). But if there is reason why it should remain, there's one compound missing: glycolic acid - i.e hydroxy acetic acid [sic].207.155.85.22 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We should keep the list to below about a dozen, as it would not be useful to be too large. I can think of more to add, but I can take pleasure in the listing of glycolic acid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Health Effects and Safety

Health Effects and Safety, paragraph 3, says "In 12 workers exposed for two or more years to acetic acid airborne average concentration of 51 ppm (estimated), produced symptoms of conjunctive irritation, upper respiratory tract irritation, and hyperkeratotic dermatitis." I believe this is missing a word or a few, because as it stands it doesn't make sense. I'd correct it but I'm not sure what it's supposed to be, as there is no attributed source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:4D02:D60:FCE0:8430:48DD:DBA7 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That should be coming from the Virginia Department of Health Division of Health Hazards Control reference. It makes sense enough, but those technical terms like hyperkeratotic dermatitis should be linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Improve Organization and Story Telling

The organization of the article can be improved. The lead section does not provide an overview of what is there in the article and it seems that the information are all over the place. I think it would be better if the main theme of the article is mentioned in the introduction. The article would improve if it mentions why each section is there and what is the relation between different sections.

Narjes.nadimzadeh (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Issue in lede about make up of vinegar

Vinegar is at least 4% acetic acid by volume, making acetic acid the main component of vinegar apart from water and other trace elements.

This seems to suggest "trace elements" are more than 4% by volume each in vinegar, which then wouldn't merit the adjective "trace". If the sentence stopped after "water" it would be correct (to my understanding), if the mention of their being things other than water and acetic acid wants to remain the sentence needs to be changed to clarify they aren't a greater proportion than acetic acid which the current version suggests. I would also think are more likely most of the other things present will be compounds rather than elements.--81.141.254.213 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the confusion over trace elements in the leading paragraph. There are still a lot of issues with this article that I will try to find and address, such as the final paragraph that states that there is difficulty in igniting acetic acid at room temperature unless the temperature is raised... Of course that would be the case, does ethanol autoignite at room temperature? Reconrabbit (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR may be needed

Although kept in 2013, I notice that some unsourced paragraphs and sentences have snuck in. Additionally, much of the article, especially the medical uses section, is in short stubby paragraphs that could use prose improvement. I'm also concerned that the article may need updating since it was originally featured in 2007. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been making some changes over the past month to address some of the prose and uncited statements, as well as updating the numbers on production. Don't know if it addresses all of the concerns; processes may have changed over the years in acetic acid production. I haven't touched the lead paragraphs either. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)