Jump to content

Talk:Bromomethane

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

This is banned?

[edit]

Methyl Bromide is listed on a number of extension service websites as the recommended treatment for southern blight. Is this out of date now? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article makes clear, methyl bromide is still used in a number of applications, although I'm not sure why it would be "recommended" for southern blight (a fungal disease). In all cases, users of methyl bromide are recommended to consider other possible treatments. Physchim62 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
methyl bromide was largely phased out in the 2010s, but the current (2024) usage in the United States needs an update. Some agricultural uses were still granted 'critical use' exemptions as recently as 2015; do RS sources show USA agriculture uses after 2015? Some countries continue to use this for import/export sterilization. Does the United States continue to use it for this purpose?Dialectric (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Natural Sources - references?

[edit]

What references document the natural production of bromomethane in oceans and marshes? This chemical is widely used as a groundwater monitoring parameter. If it is naturally present, even at very low concentrations, in marsh environments it will be inappropriate for monitoring purposes.

The link to the IARC monograph does not work.

AlbionWood 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some support for natural plant sources : http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/34006/page/3 The links I've found suggest, but not definitively, that bromomethane might be produced by certain seaweeds. I haven't seen any credible evidence that freshwater, marsh, or on-land plants produce the chemical.

Dialectric (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bromine vs. methyl bromide

[edit]

I have removed:

Bromine is 60 times[1] more destructive to ozone than chlorine.

as methyl bromide isn't bromine. This statement will easily lead many to believe that it is, or that because it has a bromine atom in the structure then it magically adopts the same properties of elemental bromine. When (actually, if) this can be placed into context then perhaps it can go back in. The link is no longer working as well. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure, but my impression is that the MeBr photolyzes to give Br. in the atmosphere, so the source of the bromine doesn't matter. In that sense, the comment that Br is 60x more destructive than chloride is relevant info.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Smokefoot, I'm very happy to replace it (but put in context) if this can be confirmed. As you'd know, there are just too many scaremongering turkeys out there that like to link oft-unrelated data (the anti-fluoride bunch is great- they rationalise that because Prozac is fluorinATED, one shouldn't have fluorIDE in water...). Regardless of fluoride, the logic is for the brain-dead.
The new statement might read: "Methyl bromide is readily photolyzed in the atmosphere to release elemental bromine, which is 60 time more destructive to ozone than chlorine" Freestyle-69 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram of the IR absorption spectra in the 10um to 30um range is not connected with the text. The IR resonance properties are of no real interest here. It's the effect on ozone that is the question. Halogen radicals cause 2xO3 to turn back into 3xO2. Halo-methanes may or may not reach the upper atmosphere, depending on their reactivity. Reactive types release the halogen radicals well before reaching the upper atmos, and pose no problem. These radicals are quickly consumed by dust, pollen, and the like. Refrigeration Freon was extremely stable and reached the ozone layer where it was attacked by UV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.245.158 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I think this article should be renamed to methyl bromide. bromomethane gets 90k hits, while methyl bromide gets 600k. similar skew for google scholar. Methyl iodide was moved from iodomethane, per a brief discussion there. I agree that for consistencies sake, we should give similar groups of compounds similar names (also change Fluoromethane, Chloromethane) unless the names we have for them are well known. im not a chemist, and i have never heard these terms (i did take ap chem so im not a total stranger to chemical nomenclature). i would change myself, but would prefer to see some discussion first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed all methyl bromides to bromomethane in the article, for the sake of consistency. I don't have strenuous objections to changing the article name (and references in the text) to methyl bromide, but I think it is important to be consistent (rather than changing names between sentences!). I believe bromomethane is the preferred IUPAC name, but methyl bromide is probably still more common. I agree that all the halomethanes should be consistently named. Carltzau (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the value of sticking to IUPAC names, unless a common name is very well known, which this one is not, really. methyl bromide is more common but the IUPAC is obviously used. I also agree in consistency as you have done. I will leave it be.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should really change this back to methyl bromide! Practically nobody uses the term bromomethane. I don't know how to check the search hits, but suspect that Mercurywoodrose's statistic of 600k searches for "methyl bromide" vs 90k for "bromomethane" is still correct. Sonyala(talk) 10:47 July 12 2011

Is there an argument for keeping the current tile rather than a move to methyl bromide?Dialectric (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge suggestion

[edit]

Action on Methyl Bromide doesn't seem like a distinct topic in any way.Prezbo (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this merge was completed in 2010.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromomethane. 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:

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) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bromomethane. 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:

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) 10:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bromomethane. 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:

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) 11:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromomethane&oldid=1251161728"