Talk:Bleach/Archive 1

Reducing agents?

I could have sworn that bleaches were usually reducing agents, not oxidising ones. Could someone who is an actual chemist clarify this? i thought there were other types of bleach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael T. Richter (talk • contribs) 2005-03-25

Laundry

Could someone possibly add a subsection for use of bleach in laundry? it seems like there would rpobably be a fair amount to say, considering differences in pretreatment and wash cycles. And to be honest, I actually came to this page hoping for some advice on how to wash a stained white fabric...what can I say, I'm selfish, now teach me :-p 134.173.121.223 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--I actually came myself to find out if it was hazardous to use as a disinfectant while doing the dishes. In particular my concerns were eating with things cleaned with bleach and the immersion of the bare hands in bleached water. If anyone has some info on this it'd be appreciated... is it safe and in what amounts?

I was looking for information on non-chlorine bleach. No such luck! But yeah, laundry information seems like it ought to be here! Bleach vs. optical whiteners and bluing agents, anyone?

I do know that we were taught in high school biology that a 10% bleach solution was enough to kill our cultures. I'd use more if it was something really nasty, but for dishwashing or serious disinfecting, that's probably all you need. And I'm not sure that you would want to kill everything on your dishes anyway: c.f. antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Something will live there, you probably want it to be the mild stuff.

history of bleach?

I was hoping to find something on bleach through the ages (don't laugh!) Dveej 06:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, so I've started a section on the history of bleach. I'm really tired right now, and I don't really know much about the topic... I hope someone else can fill it in more! ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Know some bleach chemistry?

I have added some basics on how bleaches (including sunlight) work... anyone with greater knowledge in this area is invited to improve this section! Gwimpey 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was don't move. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach_(chemical)

Bleach → Bleach_(chemical) – The front page of a Google search reveals no pages related to the chemical Bleach, the other forms are only becoming more popular. Support SandBoxer 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the chemical is the best-known meaning, and none of the others are particularly famous. Seems like a clear case of primary topic disambiguation to me. I wouldn't expect the chemical to appear particularly highly on a Google search, because the web is biased towards commercial things (like music and manga). See also for example air, for which 9 out of 10 googles are for airlines, but which on Wikipedia quite rightly redirects to Earth's atmosphere, not Air (disambiguation). — sjorford (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per sjorford. --Muchness 10:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per sjorford. Noisy | Talk 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per sjorford. —Fitch 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Hazards

Changed the last line of the Hazards section. I don't know what fool wrote that mixing bleach and ammonia formed mustard gas, but it doesn't. Any high school chemistry student knows that a mixture of those chemicals releases chlorine gas. Certainly dangerous, but in no way related to mustard gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.212.2 (talk • contribs) 24 May 2006

Bleach disamb?

Shouldn't Bleach redirect to Bleach (manga)? It gets far more hits (on say Google) to the anime rather than this. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally speaking, no. Bleach is a vital part of modern life. Bleach (manga) is a TV show, fundamentally transient; it may well currently be more popular, but it certainly is incomparably less important. Toby Douglass 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point of view. This page should be a disamb, at the least. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explosives?

As far as I'm aware, Acetone Peroxide is a sensitive HIGH EXPLOSIVE, not a bleaching agent. I suggest that references to Acetone Peroxide should be removed from this article. Baralheia 08:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach Reactions

I know this is hardly the place for a discusison on chemistry, but recently when I was using a bleach soaked paper towel to clear some mold from a painted bathroom ceiling, I noticed the paper towel start to heat up slightly in my hand. Obviously some kind of exothermic reaction was going on, but as a Computer Scientist, Chemistry is not my area of expertise. The ceiling had not been cleaned with any other chemicals beforehand, and this happened a few times whenever I got a new paper towel. Anyone know what was going on? 12.149.167.6 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what?

Why does the page have these random images of the wikipedia image in it? also, I'm pretty sure there is an anime called Bleach, so searching for bleach should take one to a disambiguation page 66.175.206.96 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. While I would rather recommend calling the emergency services, if someone swallowed bleach and you had absolutetly no idea what it was, time is of the essence and showing up to a disambiguation would only serve to confuse one. More so, if it was changed as per the suggestion of the person above to the cartoon...well that would just be ridiculous. Of course there are more sites about the awesome anime show; they're called fansites, but the chemical should be the primary subject one thinks of when the noun is mentioned. The disambig is at the top. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and there was already a vote on this too; this is certainly the primary topic when people refer to "bleach." Cool Hand Luke 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil. As I said above, this should be a disambig. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And vote or no vote, this is still a fine case of primary topic disambiguation. Disambiguation for the manga is listed at the top of the article. Why is this not acceptable? Cool Hand Luke 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same thing. Why is having the manga page here not acceptable? Someone said above that it's "the primary topic" but if you clearly Google "bleach" you will see the results. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as it also mentions above, the internet does not reflect how a word is used and understood by ordinary people. There are systemic flaws in google results that betray the biases of the internet. A better measure is how a word is used and understood by people. We can determine this by scanning for the word in all published material. How about I do a lexisnexis news search for bleach? Here are the ten most recent cites:

1. Dallas Observer (Texas), January 11, 2007 Thursday, NEWS, 1202 words, Girls Will Be Boys; It's a mixed-up world but who cares?, By Andrea Grimes

... seats for the show. The bleach-blond beauties Christina and ...

2. Hospital Law Weekly, January 11, 2007, EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 595, 614 words, OBSTETRICS; Pregnant women can minimize their risk of becoming infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus

... clean affected surfaces with bleach to ensure that the virus is destroyed. - ...

3. India Business Insight, January 11, 2007 Thursday, A2007011156-137F2-GNW, 255 words, GUJARAT ALL GEARED UP TO TAKE THE LEAD IN BIOTECH SECTOR (ZYDUS CADILA, ALEMBIC, INTAS PHARMA AND AMBALAL SARABHAI ARE FOCUSING ON THE BIOTECHNOLOGY SEGMENT)

... in bio-polishing, bleach clean-up, scouring and ...

4. Inside Bay Area (California), January 11, 2007 Thursday, ARGUS, 821 words, For sale sign worries 'Shangri La' residents, By Matt O'Brien, STAFF WRITER

... frequently come over to bleach the concrete walkway outside their ...

5. Inside Bay Area (California), January 11, 2007 Thursday, REVIEW, 837 words, 'For sale' sign worries mobile home park residents, By Matt O'Brien, STAFF WRITER

... frequently come over to bleach the concrete walkway outside their ...

6. Miami New Times (Florida), January 11, 2007 Thursday, CULTURE; art, 912 words, Thin Tizzy; Daniela Edburg's photographs skewer skinny, By Carlos Suarez De Jesus

... bathrooms by hair bleach. She has also leveled her gun sights ...

7. Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette (Australia), January 11, 2007 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. 3, 153 words, Hunt for rapist continues, BY STACEY KIBBLE

... later asking for bleach to remove his DNA from the crime ...

8. Times-Picayune (New Orleans), January 11, 2007 Thursday, SLIDELL PICAYUNE; Pg. 1, 651 words, Local boy, 9, qualifies for Mensa membership, By Beth Martin, St. Tammany bureau

... better germ killer than bleach, and has served on the Student ...

9. US Fed News, January 11, 2007 Thursday 2:56 AM EST, , 241 words, German Inventor Develops Photographic Chemicals Bundle, US Fed News, Alexandria, Va.

... solutions for a bleach-fixing bath, characterized ...

10. Women's Health Weekly, January 11, 2007, EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 87, 615 words, OBSTETRICS; Pregnant women can minimize their risk of becoming infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
... clean affected surfaces with bleach to ensure that the virus is destroyed. - ...

As you can see, the traditional use of the word is not going away. Ask the average person what they mean by bleach, and they'll tell you it's the stuff that whitens things. This is a general use encyclopedia, not a pop culture reference. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick note; if you use the Japanese wiki, an entry for Bleach will take you straight to the anime. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are many pop culture references in wikipedia. A disambiguation seems justified.

And yet, "Bleach" is a foreign word in Japanese so clearly they have a different page for the chemical. This is flawed logic. Dismabiguation pages should be used when there are many many things with the same or similar names, or several alternatives of relatively equal significance. Your favorite cartoon is not that important to most people. --Belg4mit 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe a Disambiguation page would be especially helpful, and is a good idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the internet can misconstrue a meaning of a word, but that it is easy to find what you're searching for when you (Intended as "You", the User) browses Wikipedia in search of a topic. If you went on a survey and asked both young and old alike, in person, or on the internet, you'd more than likely get multiple different answers of the meaning of "Bleach", most being primarily either related to the Anime/Manga, or the Chemical. It's not a question of whether or not someone's "favourite cartoon" is important to most people, as one or two skeptics seem to think here, but an Issue of whether the user can find what they are looking for, with the least amount of problems.

Look at it this way: Suppose you are looking for the Anime. That is your intention, and there is no mistaking it. The problem arises when you search for "Bleach"; You are directed to a chemical, which is nothing close to what you wished for, besides a similar name. There aren't many users that would guess the exact URL for the page of the Anime, and they would have a harder time finding it.

Certainly, it is an Anime, and most likely, is not important. You can't ignore that it is indeed significant, however, and that whenever someone searches for "Bleach", there is a good chance they are looking for the Anime/Manga version instead of the Chemical. A disambiguation page is definitely justified, and applicable indeed. It certainly will not hurt either article at all, and can only serve to help all Users.

I hope you've all found my input helpful. I look forward to further discussion. ^^Jwguy 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Not everything with multiple meanings justifies a disambiguation on the main article. If you look up monkey, for instance, you're taken straight to the thing most people think of when they hear the word "monkey:" the animal, not the motorcycle or the zodiac sign or anything else named after the animal. Similarly, when you mention the word "bleach" to a random person on the street, odds are far greater that they're going to think of the chemical, not the manga that's named after the chemical. Most people in English-speaking countries just aren't interested in Japanese comics or cartoons and have probably never even heard of the Bleach anime/manga. (Ask people in your neighborhood if you don't believe me). I think it's quite reasonable to expect users to be able to click the link at the top of the page to get to the article they want if they're looking for the manga. Arsivis 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arsivis. Also, personally, when I wiki "Bleach", I'm looking for the Japanese manga series, but most people think of the whitener when they hear the word. Google search really doesn't give acceptable results as people probably don't research bleach (the chemical) all that often, but still, far more think "Clorox" instead of "anime" (face it, anime isn't as popular as you think it is). As it stands, there is a link at the top of the page directing you to the series, so that should really be an acceptable compromise. PeRiDoTs13 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give my vote for a redirect to disambiguation page. I see, that more popular searches are more important, for the sake for ease of use of wikipedia. bladez (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick link for series

since most people that search bleach these days want the series not the chemical ive put a link to it above the dis link to save people a click. this way you still get the "proper" article but saves people with slower connections from having to load the dis page

I've reverted this. I haven't seen anything other than anecdotal evidence that this would be the case. Chris Cunningham 09:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think google search results are strongly indicative of what people search for on google, so I'm not opposed to the header disambig as a kind of search topic disambiguation. I think it also shows an admirable willingness to work with "fanboy" editors.

Of course, google searches do not suggest we should make this page disambiguation, or move the manga article here. If anything, sources like google news show that the traditional definition of bleach is by far the most frequently one used. But since the manga bleach is probably searched more often than the Nirvana album and the band, I don't think it's terrible to put it in the header. Cool Hand Luke 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you've convinced me. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fixed

The second section, "types of bleach" is in need of fixing. I don't know if its caused by vandalism, or general editing mistake, but it hass little [['s in it, and the second ¶ ends abruptly. I don't have the time to fix it right now, but maybe somebody else can have a look? Ghostwo 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Prior versions of the "Types of Bleach" had a lot more information in them than the current one. The older versions needed a little cleaning but they still had good information in them. --Bdevel 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

color safe bleach

could someone please put in some information about color safe bleach or make an article about it, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is bleach combustible

Will it catch on fire?

Just don't try it, 声援 -- The Hyb rid 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is a strong oxidizer though. --Belg4mit 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hazards section

is very difficult to understand. Could someone translate it into normal English, or expand it to provide some more information to us average Joes please? 声援 -- The Hyb rid 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually fairly "normal english" for a discussion of environmental chemical hazards. You might prefer something like this. --Belg4mit 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism

Resolved

Could somebody restore the "How bleaches work" section from here? It was a casualty of 217.77.143.218's "Removed vandalism" on 2007-03-27T10:56:15.--Belg4mit 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concentration

I'm finding conflicting percentages for household bleach concentration. The clorox MSDS's show a concentration range for ultra clorox that overlaps the concentration of regular clorox and the scented varieties have less. Then the bleach I buy in Korea has 4% on the bottle but I'm not sure if it's by weight or what. --Gbleem 07:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chlorine dioxide or peroxides

chlorine dioxide or peroxides? Which is the paper industry using? --Gbleem 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that needs to be flagged. Joseph N Hall 10:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disinfecting agent?

Strangely, the article does not seem to mention bleach's common use as a disinfecting agent.

Contradiction?

I can't really see where the contradiction tags are refering to in the 'Other Bleaches' section. After a bit of reading I'd guess it's the line: 'This can result in formation of dioxins, and the paper industry has begun to use peroxides instead.' coming after 'Chlorine dioxide is used for the bleaching of wood pulp, fats and oils, cellulose, flour, textiles, beeswax, and in a number of other industries' and as this first statement doesn't seem to have references and messes up an otherwise clear section I'm removing it, and the contradiction tag. If anyone agrees with the statement perhaps they can rewrite it into the section a bit more concisely. Mickthefish 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Crofting

There is no mention of the early methods of bleaching cloth as in bleachcrofts or crofting. --jmb 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards (synthesis?)

Resolved

Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A problem with chlorine is that it reacts with organic material to form trihalomethanes like chloroform, which is a well known carcinogen.^{[improper synthesis?]}"

Possibly true. Not sourced. More to the point, this article is about bleach. We need a reliable source saying something along the lines of "A problem with (type of bleach(es) being discussed) is that they can release chlorine, which reacts..." As it now stands, the statement also fits into the article on table salt.

"However, the use of elemental chlorine in industrial processes such as paper bleaching, with its attendant production of organochlorine-persistent organic pollutants (including dioxins), does not have any benefits."

Again, possibly true, not sourced and is a discussion of elemental chlorine.

"Chlorine is a respiratory irritant.^{[improper synthesis?]}"

Again, possibly true, not sourced and is a discussion of elemental chlorine.

Mdbrownmsw 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mdbrownmsw -- spot on -- this is not relevant to bleach in the context of household sodium hypochlorite GVB012009 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the section and added in sourced reactions demonstrating the hazards of bleach. Hopefully, this is a little better. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH better. Thanks! Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Resolved

Looks like the first sentence of the article needs to be changed. Spammer edited it.

Kanscrx 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Kanscrx[reply]

The hazards section (mixing bleach and ammonia)

The information on mixing bleach and ammonia in the hazards section looks pretty wrong. Does NaONH₃ even exist? 24.16.207.122 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry escapes me (along with the continued popularity of Paris Hilton). That said, h2g2 says yes to the existance of NaONH₃. Then again, you get what you pay for. Another wiki-type site (that I just closed -- oops) says the reaction in question is highly unlikely in urine due to low (or was it high?) pH.

Mdbrownmsw 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia and sodium hypochlorite react to form a number of products, depending on the temperature, concentration, and how they are mixed. The main reaction is chlorination of ammonia, first giving chloramine (NH2Cl), then NHCl2 and finally nitrogen trichloride (NCl3). These materials are very irritating to eyes and lungs and are toxic above certain concentrations. It is also possible to get chlorine and hydrazine H2N-NH2 Silverchemist 06:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, should the H2G2 site still be a reference? 24.16.207.122 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

h2g2 is essentially a wiki site. As a result, it is NOT a reliable source. I've pulled the cite. I think any reliable source we find will state that bleach + ammonia = really bad idea. The issues still calling for sourcing (IMO) are:

What are the likely and possible products of a bleach + ammonia reaction? I think we also need to find cites discussing reactions of household bleach, as opposed to just sodium hypochlorite.
Since ammonia is common in urine and bleach is often used to "clean" anything perceived as "nasty", are there any likely or possible products there that are of concern? (One site discussed bleach + urea, but I doubt most households are likely to be mixing straight NaOCl with straight urea.
This section originally had a broad, unsourced statement about "some" users avoiding use of bleach due to "hazards". I'm looking for reliable sources discussing reasons to avoid &/or limit bleach use (maybe messing up the balance of a septic system?), as well as reliable sources discussing uses where bleach is the agent of choice (it seems lots use diluted bleach to "disinfect" virtually everything - kitchen/bath floors & countertops, plastic kids' toys, cutting boards, etc.)
"Household bleach" is such a commonly used chemical that I really think this article needs significantly more content. Should the bits about industrial bleaches, sun bleaching, etc. be moved to other articles and referenced with links?

Mdbrownmsw 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

The chemistry section and the mechanism section are redundant. The current chemistry section does not describe the mechanism of bleaching, but only describes the reaction of chlorine and water. This has little to do with the chemistry of bleaching. HokieJC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drinking bleach?

This is the first I've heard of people drinking bleach to increase sexual prowess. I've heard about people doing it to beat drug tests however. I took that part out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.252.111 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that, but I've heard things like "make her drink bleach", or seen the use of a spray-bottle of bleach into the mouth to punish people (Hard Candy). Is this just coincidence, or is bleach a common ad-hoc torture implement? Scott Paeth (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an employee of Clorox, I can guarantee that not one of these recommended uses will be in one of our commercials any time soon... GVB012009 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History needed

Who invented bleach? How long have humans used bleach? Etc., Tpellman (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1774 – Swedish chemist Carl Scheele decolorizes vegetable dyes with “dephlogisticated muriatic acid” (Sir Humphry Davy in 1810 recognized the element and named it chlorine, after the Greek chloros, meaning green-yellow)

1778 – “Societé Javel” builds factory in Paris to sell Berthollet’s “chlorine-in-water”

1785 – Berthollet reports chlorine whitens linen to the French Academy of Sciences

1799 – Tennant commercializes bleaching powder from chlorine and slaked lime, dominates bleach for more than 100 years

1820 – Eau de Labarraque (sodium hypochlorite) made from caustic soda and chlorine by Labarraque (a French apothecary), replacing potassium hypochlorite

1825 – Controls wound infections – Labarraque

1846 – Semmelweis introduces hand washing with hypochlorite to reduce puerperal fever (childbed fever) at Vienna General Hospital by 80-90%

1854 – Bleaching powder used to treat sewage in London after cholera outbreak

1881 – German bacteriologist, Koch, demonstrates that hypochlorite destroys bacteria

1897 – First record of water main disinfection after a typhoid outbreak in England (1912 in Niagara Falls)

1908 – General practice of water purification in Chicago

1913 – Commercial bleach introduced by Electro-Alkaline Company (the future Clorox Company) at 21%; later reduced to 5¼% sodium hypochlorite for household use

GVB012009 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

racist

Chowfonsin (a user), has been making racist remarks. Has he been taken "care" of? Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White King is a pretty racist name for a product. Can't anyone find a better picture. In fact, has anyone here ever heard of White King? I think Clorox would be a better choice as it has world wide acceptance and recognition.Ltsgosrfn (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.125.195.209 (talk) [reply]

Without entering into the nomenclature of products (;-)) I would be happy to supply a graphic of the bottle for Clorox^(R) Liquid Bleach. I work for the company, and while I am sure that we try to eschew commercialization of these pages, it does (1) hold a commanding market share of the U.S. market, at least, and (2) have instant name recognition in the bleach category. I will leave it to the community to decide the appropriateness! GVB012009 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...

So, someone seems to have left a fat tag on the intro, and I don't have an account, so I can't seem to find a way to edit that. Anyone care to do the honors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.105.222 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could someone please tell me how to make hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite into some kind of jelly looklike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.253.4 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you meaning in the same product? That would be very tough without some sort of segregation (e.g., multiple chambers), given the immediate reaction between these two chemicals.GVB012009 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypochlorous Acid

Can someone put something in the article about Hypoclorous Acid? I was looking up bleach on Google and came across it. How is it different from Sodium Hypoclorite? Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypochlorous acid, HOCl, is the conjugate acid of sodium hypochlorite. The pK_a of HOCl is about 7.5, meaning that at pH 7.5, you have equal moles of HOCl and NaOCl. HOCl is acknowledged to be a better disinfectant than NaOCl, as well as a stronger oxidant:

HOCl + H+ + e- → H2O + Cl- +1.49 V

OCl- + H2O + 2 e- → Cl- + 2 OH- +0.90 V

Normally, hypochlorous acid is less stable than sodium hypochlorite; for this reason, it is not commercially available at strengths comparable to household sodium hypochlorite bleach. However, at lower strengths, at which it is still antimicrobial, it is available as a general sanitizer under the name of Clorox^® Anywhere^® Hard Surface^™ daily sanitizing spray.

I will post if suitable GVB012009 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf-life?

Bleaches don't maintain their bleaching ability forever, I've discovered :D
Some info on how long they should be good for, or how to test bleaches for it would be good.
~ender 2008-11-22 18:05:PM MST

Introducing myself as potential editor

Greetings, all. I am new on Wikipedia editing (though have used it a TON as a resource). As an employee of The Clorox Company, and researcher in the bleach area for literally decades (since 1980), I have seen an opportunity to supplement and clarify some information on this page. I would very much welcome any feedback and questions for clarification! GVB012009 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to the article, adding primarily information in the safety section. If anyone has any questions and/or comments, I'd love to hear them! GVB012009 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Section: Antimicrobial Efficacy

Added a section on antimicrobial efficacy. I would like to add to this section a chart showing all of the bacteria, fungi and viruses that bleach has been shown effective in eliminating. I welcome feedback on this addition. GVB012009 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with ref #3

Seems the link is not appearing. Tried to fix it, but couldn't see the problem. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. The colons and slashes had been escaped. Randall Bart Talk 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be merged with sodium hypochlorite?

There is also a Wikipedia article about sodium hypochlorite. I would suggest merging these two articles, or at least strictly disambiguating them (for example, discussing only chemistry in the article about sodium hypochlorite and only household use in the article about bleach). Thomas.Hedden (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be!!!!!!!!!!!1!!1! 194.207.212.189 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter option seems preferable to me since the Bleach topic is more general. There should probably be more discussion of non-chlorine bleach here, too. Michaeld42 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is considerable overlap in word & product usage, the tangle can be minimized with careful editing & generous use of hyper-text cross-linking in existing related discussions.
--Wikidity (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach graphic?

Per someone else's comment above, I would like to replace the White King image with a Clorox Liquid Bleach image, as it would better illustrate the article for most people (for example, see [1]). As always, I welcome feedback. GVB012009 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All -- per my earlier suggestion, I replaced the store-branded bleach graphic with one of Clorox Liquid Bleach. Please let me know if there is an objection. GVB012009 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obadasi Study Perspective

All, I'd like to post a perspective on both the Bleach and Sodium Hypochlorite discussion pages pertaining to the Odabasi references (8 and 9). I have reviewed the information and found the results interesting, but Obadasi, et al. did dimensionalize the potential risk to consumers or to workers (of which it appears to be vanishingly small):

1. The highest level that Odabasi cites for concentration of carbon tetrachloride (seemingly his biggest alarm) is 459 micrograms per cubic meter -- that translates to 0.073 ppm (part per million), or 73 ppb (part per billion). The OSHA-allowable time-weighted average concentration is 10 ppm -- almost 140 times higher -- and ***over an eight-hour period***.

2. The OSHA highest allowable peak concentration (5 minute exposure for five minutes in a 4-hour period) is 200 ppm, twice as high as Odabassi's highest peak level (from the headspace of a bottle of a sample of bleach plus detergent).

I do think that we owe it the readers, if we wish to include the Obadasi information, to put it in perspective. I would welcome feedback from the group before making such an edit. GVB012009 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence of Potassium chlorate

Nowhere in the article it is mentioned that most bleaches contain small amounts of Potassium chlorate. Often this extracted compound is used to make explosives. In the Anarchists Cookbook, there was even a recipe for making plastic explosives (though the latter should not be mentioned in the article). Still a mere stating that it contains the compound and that it is used for making explosives should be mentioned. Perhaps it can persuade the pharmaceutical companies of leaving it out or make more environmentally sound alternatives

All, the amount of chlorate that is present in bleach is not only ***quite*** small, it is really swamped out by chloride (present in molar levels equal to hypochlorite). Isolation would be virtually impossible; if you had the wherewithal to do so (through chromatography or otherwise), you would have more than ample smarts to generate it through oxidation of chloride. I think that this is one of those seeds best left unplanted: if we reference "chlorate" in Wikipedia (which seems innocuous enough), and that page is edited to contain this usage, then so be it. But here seems inappropriate. My two cents.... --GVB012009 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's small amounts of many things in most other things. We don't live (and never have lived) in a pure world. The joys of entropy. Freestyle-69 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium chloride and salt

The article tells me that sodium hypochlorite degrades to sodium chloride and decomposes to salt. I hope someone with more chemical knowledge than I can make this more meaningful. Randall Bart Talk 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degrade and decompose are generally synonymous in chemistry, although decompose is probably the better word here. I've added the equation for decomposition of hypochlorite in the Chemistry section. Michaeld42 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, salt is another name for sodium chloride in case that was unclear. This is such a common usage that I'm not certain anything needs to be changed.Michaeld42 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13 no longer available

MSNBC sez, The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at msnbc.com. Michaeld42 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cc

Shaquir Gibson sinclair (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental safety

" *Neither carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, nor teratogenesis are indicated" needs a source/citation68.225.192.99 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All -- I added a reference today (the European Union report) in which data to support this are cited -- the content appears to have been stipped out -- is it appropriate to put back in, with the citation?

Additionally, on 10/21/2010, some cretin punked the page, stripping out text on AOX. When his "contribution" was deleted, that text did not go back in: "High levels of absorbable organic halides (AOX) can be found during reaction of sodium hypochlorite and soils, including carbon tetrachloride, trihalomethanes (THM, such as chloroform), and trihaloacetic acid (THAA, in this case trichloroacetic acid). Most AOX go into the sewer with wash water." I would recommend putting that back in, as well as the follow-up that the AOX going into the sewage (or septic systems) is found to be readily degraded.GVB012009 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup

there are many false claims claims about bleach that need to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anecdote about fish swimming away from bleach seems frivolous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.229.6.112 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be proven or disproved though? If it is disprovable, remove it right away, if it can't, add a source needed note. 72.152.36.78 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All -- I tried to provide perspective that I have understood, though I do not currently have a source at hand. The implication is that fish sense the hypochlorite, and will try to swim away from it. In a large body of water, they can escape the hazard, but if inappropiately dumped into a koi pond or aquarium, it is toxic, per the reference cited in the section (newly added). I also included the paragraph above to provide a conclusion from the European Commission that there is no significant environmental risk under normal use conditions.GVB012009 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing needs a source. Unless you actually performed this experiment in person, how do you know about it? (Daniel Tsadok) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.207.40 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting an experiment in person would be an instance of original research and not appropriate anyway. There are lots of things you can know with a high degree of certainty without conducting an actual experiment yourself— you just can't include them in a Wikipedia article without citing a published source is all. KDS4444^Talk 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resistant micro-organisms

The new reference (thanks for the response) for "create resistant micro-organisms" in the article seems in fact to be describing bacterial defense against hypochlorous acid, not the creation of resistance, akin to "drug resistance". From the source document: As a defense mechanism, bacteria employ the redox-regulated chaperone Hsp33, which responds to bleach treatment with the reversible oxidative unfolding of its C-terminal redox switch domain. I'm about to wikify the reference and remove the "drug resistance" comment, but would welcome a review of my interpretation as the topic is elaborated later in the paper, with particular reference to the notoriously protean e. coli. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All -- First, I have gone through the reference, and the only bacterium cited as to the effect of the chaperone effect is E. coli. While the pathogenicity of E. coli is unquestioned, I do believe that the language "Ill-considered use may create resistant micro-organisms,[2] both at the site of application and at the disposal site, leading to aggravated health problems" is over-reaching. First, as stated, it is a singular bacterium cited in the article; no such effect has been cited nor found by the authors to suggest that the effect extends beyond E. coli (and thus the reference in this description of the article should be narrowed accordingly); and (2) the authors do not discuss nor imply that there could or would be a problem at the site of application, at the disposal site, or that it could lead to aggravated health effects. This therefore seems to rise to inference/opinion of the contributor.

Might I suggest that the citation (which incidentally is discussed without attribution under "Antimicrobial efficacy") be removed from this section (since again, the health effects are speculative at this time), and that the topic be commented on down in the "Antimicrobial efficacy" section. There, it could be noted that, "The authors found that at low (micromolar) sodium hypochlorite levels, E. coli appear to be able to develop a defense mechanism that helps protect the bacterium, though the implications of this defense mechanism have not been fully investigated." Seem right?

I do not wish to do this unilaterally without discussion; might I suggest a period of one week (i.e., 1/15/11), after which I would make the appropriate change if there is no comment to the contrary?--GVB012009 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal: specific information and all in one place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Absent other comment, I will make this alteration today. THX GVB012009 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilution ratio incorrect for disinfecting food contact surfaces

The site's recommendation of 1 part bleach to 9 parts water is ridiculously high. Toxic for food surfaces. That is a 1:9 ratio of bleach to water or 14.22 ounces of bleach to 1 gallon(128 ounces) of water. Someone needs to update the site.

The correct federal regulation for diluting bleach to disinfect food contact surfaces is 1:256 (.5 ounce of bleach per gallon of water) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.32.102 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why does the milton sterilization method point to bleach? there are no details about this method in this article

why does the milton sterilization method point to bleach? there are no details about this method in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.84.164 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton is bleach 82.31.207.100 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link for ref 19?

msnbc.com says the text for ref 19 ("Mystery solved: How bleach kills germs") is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.32.193 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical use

No mention yet of medical uses.

Dilute bleach has been used successfully to clear infections in body cavities in Russia.
Bleach is an effective topical microbial where more popular options fail
Bleach kills yeasts & viri as well as bacteria

82.31.207.100 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]