Talk:Propylene glycol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use as antifreeze

One of the primary, if not the biggest use of propylene glycol is a safe alternative to ethylene glycol as an antifreeze. That is not mentioned. [unsigned undated comment]

This point appears to have been taken care of. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

This article appears to repeat itself. The second sections contains sentences also present inthe first. I've not got time to do it now (sorry), if someone reads this and it isn't done yet then go for it. I'm just meaning to draw attention to the problem. If it's been fixed then feel free to remove this message. ~Mullet [undated comment]

Has this point been taken care of? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chemical formula

The cemical formular does not match the pitcher (Written by User:62.252.64.15)

It does as far as I can see. Cacycle 21:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The chemical formula matches the picture, but the picture does not match the actual structure. One of the hydroxy groups should be attached to the central carbon atom, instead of a terminal one: CH3-CHOH-CH2OH -- Cvitols 6 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Oops. I have corrected the image. Cacycle 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Merged

Merged from dup article Propylenglycol. Vsmith 14:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== needs infobox ==liuhlihlkhlkhlkhklhkljh

This substance needs a standard chemical infobox, like other chemical compunds... for example Ethylene glycol. Jamie 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Antibacterial?

the deodorant page links to here claiming that propylene glycol is an antibacterial. is this so? source info is pretty weak, http://www.chemicalland21.com/petrochemical/PROPYLENE%20GLYCOL.htm Dreamer.redeemer 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Metabolic process?

The article states that PG metabolizes into lactic acid. 1) citation is needed. 2) aside from the h20 + lactic acid breakdown, other compounds are possible... i'm no chemist, but someone smarter than myself should be able to square this puppy up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.87.124 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Use as a laxitive?

A friend of mine said his mother was prescribed PG for relief of constipation at a hospital and that it worked very well. I haven't researched the net yet for this - any comments?

polyethylene glycol or PEG is an extremely powerful laxative used in colonoscopy prep. Efcmagnew (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference for this use? If so it should be added to the article. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could have phrased that better. Polyethylene glycol, not propylene glycol, is an extremely powerful laxative. I'm not sure if PG is, and a quick google search was inconclusive. I was noting that possibly the laxative the person was referring to was PEG. Sorry, Efcmagnew (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC name

This article says the IUPAC name is 1,2-propanediol. Should it be propane-1,2-diol instead? --Deryck C. 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The tasteless flavoring agent?

I want to know how it's used "as a flavoring agent in Angostura and Orange bitters" when the description also says it's "tasteless". Something doesn't match up there. -- JdwNYC 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Using it as a flavoring agent doesn't make any sense. I did some reading, PG is used as an emulsifying agent in flavors and citrus concentrations. Because the citrus flavor is an oil, it won't mix evenly with water based solutions unless an emulsifier is added. Nice catch. Oasisbob 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

ps. This will be a fun one to google in a few months and see how many sources still cite PG "as a flavoring agent in Angostura and Orange Bitters". Oasisbob 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FDA Safe or Not???

Safe or not? The FDA contradicts itself?

According to this article, the FDA has ruled propylene glycol in cat food to be "in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21CFR589.1001"

The next paragraph says the FDA has ruled "propylene glycol to be "generally recognized as safe" for use in food, cosmetics, and medicines."

So, which is it?? Did the FDA rule it safe for food or not? Or is it perfectly safe for all mammals to eat EXCEPT cats? This article raises more questions than it answers for the great amount of people that look this up to answer the question: should I or my pets be eating this or not?

I'm sure the FDA did not simultaneously rule it to be safe and not safe. We need to figure out which it is and get rid of the other one. If it somehow is both, we need to explain how and why.

Andrew

24.91.195.62 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) is a term used by the FDA to indicate a substance is thought to be safe for human beings, not every species on the planet. Cats are not teeny-tiny people. They're obligate carnivores, not omnivores. Propylene glycol will create Heinz bodies (a type of red blood cell) in felines, resulting in oxidative damage. DO NOT give propylene glycol to cats.

According to the USDA (FSIS Directive 7120.1 Ammendment 8) Lauramide arginine dissolved in propylene glycol can be added to fresh meat and poultry, and may be listed on the label as just plain lauric arginate. Also, in solutions intended as antimicrobials, it can be added to fresh meat and poultry WITHOUT mentioning it on the label. You can't tell by the label what's on the food, so be careful feeding your cat human food, even boiled chicken.

FAA questioning environmental impact

A chemical used by Alaska aviators to prevent their aircraft from icing up in the winter is getting new scrutiny from environmental regulators. The state plans to adopt a rule that would classify the anti-icing fluid, sprayed on planes before they take off, as a contaminant that could require an industrial cleanup.

| Anchorage Daily News article

However, while ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are both biodegradable, propylene glycol degrades at a slower rate and has a greater biochemical oxygen demand. Thus, propylene glycol will remain in the environment longer than ethylene glycol and will consume more oxygen while it is being broken down. Therefore, it can still be harmful to the environment.

| Bioremediation of Aircraft Deicing Fluids (Glycol) at Airports. (PDF)

I wasn't sure how to include this reference in the article, so someone please feel free to do such. --Xitit 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

a "Colorless, Clear liquid is redundant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.161.46 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, there can be clear red liquids or colorless opaque liquids.Mr Bungle | talk 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasteless and slightly sweet?

I guess one of them must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.149.219 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychosis in recent cases

How has no one edited this page for psychosis? We are having people in the ER experience psychosis with new IV injections that contain propylene glycol as a co-solvent for water-immiscible drugs, such as phenytoin. Can someone please find the sources from journals on the emerging cases? I'm not saying this is an emergency, but wikipedia should have this information by now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.142.166 (talk) 20:12, 11 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 carefull 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) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

VERY SCARY cross check the ingredients on various personal items with the National Toxicology Program...

Bold textPropylene oxide is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals (NTP 1984, IARC 1985, 1987, 1994). When administered by inhalation, propylene oxide induced hemangiomas or hemangiosarcomas of the nasal cavity in mice of both sexes. When administered by inhalation, propylene oxide increased the incidences of papillary adenomas of the nasal turbinates in rats of both sexes (NTP 1984).

Propylene oxide is used primarily as a chemical intermediate in the production of polyurethane polyols (60% to 65%), propylene glycols (20% to 25%), glycol ethers (3% to 5%), and specialty chemicals. Polyurethane polyols are used to make polyurethane foams; whereas, propylene glycols are primarily used to make unsaturated polyester resins for the textile and construction industries. Propylene glycols are also used in drugs, cosmetics, solvents and emollients in food, plasticizers, heat transfer and hydraulic fluids, and antifreezes. In addition, propylene oxide may be used in fumigation chambers for the sterilization of packaged foods and as a pesticide (IARC 1994, HSDB 2001). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybaby (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It causes cancer

I posted a new section CANCER and it was immediately deleted. My source is credible. I'm glad to learn automation caused the deletes and not a conspiracy by the drug companies. Propylene glycol is known to cause cancer according to CALIFORNIA's EPA known as OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 lists known chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number: 57018-52-7 originally listed Propylene Glycol on June 11, 2004 and most recently referenced listing on December 19, 2008.

According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment propylene glycol is known to cause cancer. It originally made the Proposition 65 list as cancer causing chemicals on June 11, 2004. Download the pdf file yourself http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single121908.pdf or go to http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html 76.125.15.113 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Knowitall-fgma

The references you give refer to propylene glycol mono-t-butyl ether not propylene glycol, they are different chemicals. Compare propylene glycol mono-t-butyl ether with propylene glycol. They clearly have a different structure. The Hazardous Substances Data Bank lists propylene glycol as practically non-toxic[1] whereas the entry for propylene glycol mono-t-butyl ether lists a number of medical complications[2] WaysToEscape (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarifying the deletion. I am not a doctor, chemist or any thing like that. I am merely a person suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and have had to dedicate my time to research for my own condition. I first started investigating propylene glycol because of references (look at 7:15 a.m.) from Brenda Watson's Detox Strategy book (website). I found her book after discovering that my shampoo and conditioner were making me ill. Granted, I know that "Fragrance" is the major cause for many products that cause me difficulties, but I had been using this particular brand for several years. I mistook my bathroom dizziness for mold until I learned of so-called "safe" products being dangerous. Upon discontinuing these products, the dizziness went away. However, washing the dishes with liquid detergent now causes my symptoms too. So I had to start investigating what changes may have occurred in my home since it tested negative for mold and I tested negative for any allergies. The change was my frequent use of hand sanitizer containing Watson's warning of propylene glycol.

I found California's list of banned chemicals because my last severe onset almost ten years ago was the result of a "stained glass" lamp that felt like plastic [3]. I have made stained glass artwork with small pieces and they always felt like glass but these lamps have a chemical coating on them and/or are made from cheap chemically processed "glass" from China (sorry, can't locate the reference now). It was not the lead, you could smell the chemicals when the lamp got hot. Once I discovered that was the cause and removed it, my symptoms disappeared. When I recently went to purchase a similar product online it said it could not be shipped to California because of Proposition 65 (at the time some pieces mentioned lead and others mentioned chemicals). So I researched what Prop 65 was. I'm the "canary in the coal mine" telling you it will take ten years for them to prove propylene glycol is a contributing factor. Sure, tests on it alone might prove safe, just as the active ingredient in hand sanitizers Ethyl Alcohol is safe for external use. But have they tested it combined with aminomethyl propanol and the other inactive "safe" ingredients listed on the bottle. I'm getting chest pains just reading the bottle. Just as chlorine and ammonia will kill you if mixed together, our chemical world is determining "safe" without regard to interactions and long term low dose effects. Knowitall-fgma (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Knowitall-fgma

Increases acid?

Can someone give a citation or at least some context for the statement that propylene glycol "affects the body's chemistry by increasing the amount of acid"? The following sentence makes it sound like this is due to PG being metabolized into pyruvic acid, but at the concentrations discussed in the article, someone consuming PG in a food or medication would be unlikely to add even one gram of acid to their body. Is this in any way significant? Inhumandecency (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Propylene Glycol Toxicity

12.34.246.77 (talk · contribs) dumped the following information into the middle of the body of the article:

“ Propylene glycol toxicity is a potentially life-threatening iatrogenic complication that is common and preventable. source: http://www.chestjournal.org/content/128/3/1674.full ”

The link leads to an abstract of this article: Propylene Glycol Toxicity: A Severe Iatrogenic Illness in ICU Patients Receiving IV Benzodiazepines*
A Case Series and Prospective, Observational Pilot Study
Kevin C. Wilson, MD, Christine Reardon, MD, Arthur C. Theodore, MD, and Harrison W. Farber, MD, FCCP
American College of Chest Physicians

It sounds like a reliable source and should probably be integrated somewhere into the article if someone more knowledgeable about the topic agrees. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential health effects

Causes moderate skin irritation. Contact with the skin may cause erythema, dryness, and defatting.

Prolonged contact with propylene glycol is essentially non-irritating to the skin.

These statements appear to contradict each other. Neither is cited.

The 'Potential health effects' section needs citations. Dforest (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the Potential health effects section says chronic exposure has been shown to be mutagenic, but that it's not carcinogen or genotoxic. I'm not an expert, but I find that to be an obvious contradiction. I've added the Contradict template to the section. I'll probably try to review the section in full and fix it myself if I remember. 74.178.246.47 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the list of effects needs citations (and is badly formatted to boot). Since the rest of the section appears to stand well on its own, I moving the list here until it can be fixed:

---

Eye

Causes mild eye irritation. Contact may cause irritation, tearing, and burning pain.

Skin

Causes moderate skin irritation in certain individuals with an allergy. Contact with the skin may cause erythema, dryness, and defatting if an allergy is present.

Ingestion

May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause hemoglobinuric nephrosis. May cause changes in surface EEG.

Inhalation

Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause respiratory tract irritation.

Chronic

May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Exposure to large doses may cause central nervous system depression. Chronic ingestion may cause lactic acidosis.

---

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia tag

I added a trivia tag to the Applications section. This section is just an indiscriminate collection of applications where propylene glycol can be used. Most of the entries are not sourced. This should be paired down to the major uses of propylene glycol. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, applications are not "trivia" and there is not much one can do besides listing them. Moreover editorial comments do not belong in the article; and a mere request "someone please do this work" does not contribute anything to Wikipedia, it actually moves it slightly backwards. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Effects

I added the environmental effects tab. It is a lightly edited copy and paste from an EPA publication. My understanding is that EPA rules notices are not and cannot be copywritten. If there is a different policy on Wikipedia, then I will be happy to change the language. best, Myshkingfh (talk)

It is ok to copy and paste from a US government publication since the US government can not claim copyright. I placed the tag since it generally better to summarize what the reliable sources say rather than direct quotes out of the source. I think for wikipedia it could be written so that the information is easier to understand for the general population. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I'm not used to the wikipedia editing process that much; mostly I just correct grammar. I'll see if I can't tighten the language at some point which would make it more readable and less of a mere reposting of a government report. Of course, anyone else could tighten it up too! Again, I appreciate the criticism, support and explanation. Myshkingfh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Environmental

The first paragraph of the environmental section is referring to the degredation of propylene glycol in surface waters, but the paragraph ends with a reference to ethylene glycol. Should that reference not be to propylene glycol? Otherwise, what is doing there? I am tempted to edit or remove it, but I'd rather just make the comment here and see what someone else thinks.--TechnoDanny (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference List Correction

I was going through the references and I found an error with reference #3. The reference points to the correct page number (26) but the wrong volume of the book series. This should cite Volume 2 "Major Oxygenated, Chlorinated, and Nitrated Derivatives" with an ISBN number of "2-7108-0563-4". I tried to edit the reference section although all that shows up is "reflist". Can someone else make this modification (or point me towards a resource that would rectify my ignorance)? Leptonsoup337 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)leptonsoup337

Duplicate reference

The last paragraph of "Humans" and the last paragraph of "Allergic reaction" refer to the same Swedish study. Footnote 37 is a duplicate of footnote 29. --88.73.3.182 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion with Ethylene Glycol

I added the Template:Distinguish for Ethylene Glycol. As many people confuse the two when citing human toxicity. For example Austin News called Electronic cigarette poisonous as "They use the same ingredient as car antifreeze". When in fact car antifreeze uses Ethylene Glycol and ecigarretes use Propylene Glycol. Charles Dayton (Talk) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually car antifreeze could be either which is actually why I am here. I wish to have both the boiling points and freezing points in this article.

(article.http://www.acustrip.com/specs/2-wayafauto.html)

Would this meet wiki standards for authoritative? it does have both freeze and boil for propylene glycol used as a coolant. Propylene glycol seems to be most effective at 60% concentration as opposed to70% for ethylene glycol. propylene glycol also seems to have a slightly narrower range of protective temperatures. I understand that it is not so good to mix them and some cars that require one will over heat with the other, but have no good sources for this. Glennndavis (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Glenn

Use in E-Cigarettes

Propylene Glycol is used as a solvent for Nicotine in almost all E-Cigarettes, although it is often mixed with normal (vegetable based) glycerine in various proportions to reduce its unpleasant taste and also because vegetable based glycerine is considered too viscous to use alone, Propylene Glycol is much less viscous and thins the mixture down to a more manageable viscosity. Since E-Cigarettes are becoming more and more popular especially in the last year, I feel it may be worthwhile adding it as a valid application. 86.149.118.241 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and will do so. PEG 400 already mentions the use of that chemical in e-juice, and PG is much more widely used than PEG 400. Quaestor23 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Modification to Figure

Since the point of the synthetic figure (File:(s)-Propanediol_from_D-Mannitol.png) is that the product can be made as a single enantiomer, stereochemistry should be added to the final three structures in the scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxfield1138 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please create a non-technical site

Someone needs to create a non-technical version of Wikipedia. This page is useless for non-technical people. Propylene glycol is used in many flavorings (extracts or whatever) yet the "Applications" section in particular is highly technical. It would help to be able to understand why Propylene glycol is used in many flavorings and we need a non-technical site for that. Or maybe people should stop trying to show off how much they know and instead try to help people to understand technical things such as Propylene glycol. Sam Tomato (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a Simple English Wikipedia at https://simple.wikipedia.org. If you feel that this article is to complicated, you might consider tagging the article as being too technical.173.228.123.21 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The topic is inherently technical. If you want to start a simpler version of the article, the Simple English Wikipedia is the place for it, and you are welcome to create a simplfied article there. Reify-tech (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Used in Oil Dispersant

Propolyne Glycol is the main ingredient used in COREXIT 9500, for anyone that is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6011:61:5CAE:B261:8C88:C9E7 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

reference 37 inaccuracy

I believe reference 37 should have the additional Propylene glycol is a preservative thatHi has been proven to produce rashes (skin irritant) in some people if subjected to it over time. I find this ingredient in mostly cheaper products. I have had allergy testing due to rashes on hands and face and found out most cosmetic products such as lotions, shower gels, almost all sprays (ex. bath and body works)etc... have this glycol in it. Watch out since its in food products also (some dressings, processed foods etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLC0007 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)