Talk:Piperazine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piperazine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we have some articles about other piperazines please?

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about other piperazines like "flippiperazine", "paraperazine", and "fluopiperazine". They are in many party pill brands but I can't seem to find anything about them - not even their chemical formulae, let alone details of their pharmacology on the internet. These may have to be in separate articles.

Several other articles about piperazines are available at Wikipedia:MeSH_D03#MeSH_D03.383.606_---_piperazines. Those used as antihistamines are at ATC_code_R06#R06AE_Piperazine_derivatives. However, none of the the three you listed are included on either list. Those three also don't show up on PubChem (which is usually pretty comprehensive), so I suspect that they are either misspelled, or street names. --Arcadian 01:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its worth adding a note that piperazines are now often sold as ecstasy or ecstasy alternatives. Its pretty common these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.23.91 (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

There seems to be some confusion about pKa and pKb. The pKb, for a weak base like piperazine, corresponds to the equilibrium: B + HOH ↔ BH⁺ + OH^-; the pKa for the same base is derived from the equilibrium: BH⁺ + HOH ↔ B + H₃O⁺ (i.e. starting with the protonated amine). The pKa in the Chembox was originally given as ~4.2, and the Merck Index cited as the source; 4.2 is given in the body of the article, correctly, as the pKb, but without a citation. My edition of the Merck Index, the 10th, gives a "K" value of 6.4x 10^-5, which works out to a pKb = 4.19. Since the pKa and pKb for a substance must sum to 14, I calculated the pKa value of ~9.8 and entered it into the Chembox. If someone has a problem with this, they may feel free to delete it. They should not feel free to delete the value of the pKb in the Chembox. Actually, the situation is a bit more complicated than this, as piperazine is a diamine, with two Kb s, representing two successive protonations in aqueous solution, but I'm not sure if this is worth getting into here. I'll try to do a better job of clarifying these issues in the body of the article itself, when I have time... Xprofj (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Information

Copying scientific information from a 100 year-old source like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, just because it is no longer copyrighted, is absurd. Medical, pharmacological, and chemical knowledge were still practically in their infancy at this time, and although some of the information is still valid, some of it is not. The comment I deleted about piperazine being used as a "solvent" for uric acid is not entirely wrong, but it was copied from the original Britannica article without any explanation (or, presumably, understanding) of the context (ie that scientists observing the high water-solubility of the salt formed between piperazine and uric acid "in the test-tube" thought that the same process might make piperazine a useful medicinal agent for treating gout in living patients). This comment is interesting historically, but it should have been explained, and certainly does not belong in the same section as a listing of currently-used drugs containing a piperazine ring in their structures.

My point here is not to criticize the writer of the original Wikipedia entry, but to emphasize that WP will never be taken seriously (or contributed to) by "professionals" of any kind if information is copied without proper understanding from old sources. This doesn't mean that I believe only "professionals" should contribute to scientific articles in WP - I couldn't care less about a writer's formal credentials, but I'm just entering a plea that "editors" refrain from copying things they don't understand, just because they find it "in print" somewhere. Xprofj (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon capture and storage

I'll be adding information under "Other uses" regarding piperazine's role in Amine gas treating, specifically for CO₂ removal as a part of CCS. Through research, I found that piperazine has been fairly widely used in association with an amine solvent for commercial CO₂ absorption, since around 2009. There are many research papers and articles regarding this topic. Also, I'll be adding links to Amine gas treating and Methyl diethanolamine under "See also". --Jocelynskim (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have started adding references to peer reviewed scientific journals.GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]