Jump to content

Talk:Triclosan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I think the Triclosan SDC ad at the end should be removed.

Talk 1

I think it's important to disclose that the study finding that triclosan does not promote microbial resistance (McBain et al. 2003) is funded by Proctor & Gamble, which uses triclosan in it's products and has a financial stake in showing that triclosan is safe. I'm not commenting on the quality of the research, simply that such an association was important enough to be noted on the original publication and should therefore also be included with its use on this page.

Also, it's not entirely true that Dr. Levy's 2004 paper "demonstrat[ed] that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance." The authors of that paper allow that their 1-year study is not a definitive assessment of triclosan's possible association with antibiotic resistance. They allow that a longer-term study may find different results. (69.134.179.186 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I removed the statement "Triclosan has been shown to be safe through extensive testing and 30 years of experience in personal care products and clinical use and is approved by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and by the European Union." because it is not accurate and conflicts with another part of the article that says the epa classifies triclosan as a probable carcinogen. User:TitaniumDreads 20:42, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

TitaniumDreads is wrong here - the EPA refers to chloroform as a probable human carcinogen, NOT triclosan. TDs comments across Wikipedia have a marked anti-chemical tendency - no problem with that, but be aware when you read his/her comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CidermanRolls (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006
Yeah, Triclosan doesn't break down into chloroform in the mouth, although it has been shown to break down to chloroform in chlorinated water exposed to sunlight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.200.87.18 (talk) 10 August 2006

I'd like to read about how Triclosan works and how (or whether) it degrades in the environment. I've done some research but I'd rather see something written by someone with more familiarity with the subject. Notinasnaid 15:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is there a POV issue with having almost all of the external links on the page point to anti-Triclosan advocacy sites? (The one that doesn't just has the chemical structure, and no other content.) The current writeup itself seems balanced, and I don't see much of a POV issue there, it's just the lack of balance in the external references that is a little troubling. -- 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the links seem to violate NPOV, although I can't find any pro-Triclosan sites... any ideas? 81.174.135.79 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

there seems to be some contradiction.. in one paragraph it says that some bacteria are resistant to triclosan, and in the next few paragraphs it says that bacterial resistance is not possible?? Hellznrg 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

--Agreed, This should be looked into--it is confusing. Proper citation of sources is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.178.116 (talk) 17 May 2006

Article

An article on triclosan: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/10-04/triclosan-article.htm --68.239.240.144 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Triclosan article's external link listed as "Antibacterials? Here's the Rub – campaign site" may be questionable. Currently (Feb 2, 07) it leads at least on my Mac browser to a single pixel graphic which may not be a good thing? Or maybe the linked site is normally ok and useful but has a temporary problem? I've never edited in Wikipedia so I leave any followup to experts, thanks. Plosel2 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute / Resistance concerns

I don't have the time to edit, but this wiki article is deeply flawed (and now has a POV problem with being too pro-triclosan). I suggest starting here for a decent review: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/mdr.2006.12.83?cookieSet=1 Triclosan and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria: An Overview SIAMAK P. YAZDANKHAH,1 ANNE A. SCHEIE,2 E. ARNE HØIBY,3 BJØRN-TORE LUNESTAD,4 EVEN HEIR,5 TOR ØYSTEIN FOTLAND,1 KRISTINE NATERSTAD,5 and HILDE KRUSE6 MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE Volume 12, Number 2, 2006 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Please note that this is a complicated issue, so don't cherry pick from the literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.232.165 (talk) 12 February 2007

Research has shown that resistance to triclosan does occur, and that it can be transmitted between bacteria. There is also cause to be concerned in terms of cross-resistance.

Under some conditions tested in some literature resistance or cross-resistance (e.g. dental conditions don't appear to be a problem) do not occur or are not important. However, this is not the case for all conditions, so please don't read one sentence from one article and draw conclusions for the rest of the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.255.24 (talk) 13 February 2007

I've added the cite above to the article, and removed the NPOV tag. If you have specific concerns about the article's lack of adherence to NPOV, please mention them. —Trevyn 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol - now it's gone completely the other way. This article looks like it was written by the "chemicals are killing us" crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigah Dude (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Pepsodent

An IP removed this from the list of products. Is this correct? Rich Farmbrough, 08:42 26 April 2007 (GMT).

I don't know, if triclosan is still used in Pepsodent. Some years ago, it was used in that toothpaste: [1] --Leyo 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Pepsodent and other big tooth paste companies act on so many different markets and the same brand may differ in composition between markets, not only in triclosan but in a lot of other things. And the same composition might have different names, and all kinds of other confusion ... I am pretty sure at least of some Pepsodent brands still contain Triclosan, at least they did so very recently. Anyway should specific brands be mentioned on wikipedia? The list of products containing triclosan would be so amazingly long if specific brands would be mentioned. Benkeboy 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

a{d,b}sorb

Could someone clarify whether the interaction of triclosan with sewage sludge and particles settling out of the water column is adsorption or absorption? I changed the b to a d because the original text said that the triclosan "absorbs to" something, which as far as I can tell is just ungrammatical. But the abstracts of one of the two citations just refers to "sorption", and I don't see any similar word in the other abstract. --Trovatore 06:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed! "It has been shown to be effective in reducing and controlling bacterial contamination on the hands and on treated products." By whom??? Please work to keep Wikipedia from turning into an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.56.152 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements on Soap

I have marked several statements in the 'Alternatives' section as dubious:

  • Soap is itself an effective microbicide due to the fact that soap breaks down oils.
  • All bacterial cell walls are based on lipid chains, which are oil-based.
  • The simple act of applying soap to the hands and rubbing vigorously will cause the cell walls of any bacteria on the hands to be ripped apart by the soap, disintegrating and killing any bacteria present.

Soap is not a very effective microbicide. It works as a disinfectant by removing bacteria from surfaces like skin, rather than by killing them. Bacterial cell membranes are made up of lipids, but bacterial cell walls are not. Bacterial cell walls are unlikely to be damaged by exposure to soap. Bacteria with cell walls will certainly not be ripped apart by soap.--68.238.228.97 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap by nature is an emulsifier and has the power to denature proteins and cell membranes. The cell wall is made of peptidoglycan, a glycoprotein matrix whose molecular components are susceptible to denaturation by interaction with hydrophobic and hydrophilic moieties of soap. However, the effectiveness of soap however to denature the cell wall, cell membrane, and destroy bacteria is not known. The basic chemical interaction between an emulsifier and bacterial walls and membranes precludes that soap does have potential to kill bacteria but this is generally not recognized to sterilize surfaces or hands (like 70% ethanol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.211 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Washing hands

Comment 1

I am sure there is a better study to quote about washing hands. I believe the findings are more relevant to the efficacy of rubbing your hands - which must be done for a certain length of time to effectively kill germs. I believe the information would be found somewhere at the CDC - especially with the now highly publicized outbreak of MRSA staph infections. Even when using a surgical scrub, you are supposed to scrub with product for at least a minute. The casual wet hands, add soap and rub for 5 seconds, that you normally see in a public restroom,is not going to really kill much of anything. I am also a soapmaker. Soap helps to clean, but you still have to wash.[I did try navigating the CDC site and gave up since I am on dial up - too many screen changes for me -sorry.]

Comment 1

I am sure there is a better study to quote about washing hands. I believe the findings are more relevant to the efficacy of rubbing your hands - which must be done for a certain length of time to effectively kill germs. I believe the information would be found somewhere at the CDC - especially with the now highly publicized outbreak of MRSA staph infections. Even when using a surgical scrub, you are supposed to scrub with product for at least a minute. The casual wet hands, add soap and rub for 5 seconds, that you normally see in a public restroom,is not going to really kill much of anything. I am also a soapmaker. Soap helps to clean, but you still have to wash.[I did try navigating the CDC site and gave up since I am on dial up - too many screen changes for me -sorry.] 4.246.208.203 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)lmdicenzo@yahoo.com

Washing Hands (3)

I was drawn here by the absence of Triclosan (now replaced by chloroxylenol) in my favourite shower gel. I did finally find a famous brand with triclosan and purchased it, but the excercise was difficult enough that I supected a problem. I am a cynic, and have been proven right to be so so many times that I recommend that life strateg especially where profit producing goods are concerned.

The effectiveness of soap versus triclosan containing soap versus chloroxylenol containing sopa has been tested in a limited study by the. The following paper gives pretty damning results:

A Comparative Study of the Immediate Effects of a Triclosan Antibacterial, Chloroxylenol Antibacterial and Lotion Soap Katie Koecher and Debra Krenke Faculty Sponsor: Timothy S. Uphoff, Ph.D, Clinical Science Dept University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. (Undated)

http://murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/2000/koecher-krenke.pdf

I would prefer someone more qualified than myself to have a look please, but that paper, other net pages with negative comments and a paper on the effects of hand washing on the skin of persons employed in health related jobs: AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control. 34(10):627-635, December 2006. Larson, Elaine PhD, RN, FAAN, CIC a,b; Girard, Raphaelle MD c; Pessoa-Silva, Carmem Lucia MD d; Boyce, John MD e; Donaldson, Liam MD f; Pittet, Didier MD, MS g

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajic/fulltext.00000545-200612000-00004.htm.

plus the concern over the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics as multiple-resistant strains spread has lead me to decide tothat this will be the last bottle of anti-bacterial soap I buy. I will also ake any opportunity that presents itself to decry the use of such products except under medical orders adn for a limited time. Perhaps I will just have to be smelly (8-(!.)

Never Wikied before, but this one seems important. For what its worth I can be contacted at bilou540(+ another four as a decimal number)ATyahoo.com. I'm not registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.188.228.255 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Triclosan and Dioxin

The section of the article headed "Health Concerns" has a couple sentences discounting the risk of a harmful dioxin compound forming when triclosan gets into tap water. "However, dioxin is not one compound, but a family of compounds of widely ranging toxicity. The dioxin compound that formed when triclosan degraded in sunlight is not a dioxin of public health concern." This assertion cites no source, although it seems to be repeating information in the "Formation of dioxin in surface water" section, which cites dioxinfacts.org.

Dioxinfacts.org seems like a dubious source. It is a site maintained by the American Chemistry Council, which is essentially a PR organization for the U.S. Chemical industry, including plastics and chlorine manufacturers. The American Chemistry Council also operates a P.A.C. for donating money to memembers of Congress. (This informaiton can be found in Wikipedia's on article on the Americna Chemistry Council.) Any information that comes from this organization hardly seems neutral.

I think the statements about dioxin forming in tap water in both the "Formation of dioxin in surface water" and "Health Concerns" section, which are based on dioxinfacts.org from the American Chemistry Council, should be removed and other sources of information should be found. These statements are copied almost verbatim from dioxinfacts.org and, in fact, it does not seem unlikely that they could have been inserted in this article by a representative of the American Chemistry Council, which would essentially be turning these parts of the article into PR for American chemical companies. 76.191.225.163 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. The American Chemistry Council is a propaganda organization.--Ericjs (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the issue of sourcing. However, the science underlying the sentences that the original commenter characterizes as "discounting the risk of a harmful dioxin compound forming when triclosan gets into tap water" is based on the peer-reviewed literature. Whoever cited the dioxinfacts.org cite for this information was simply lazy. As it currently stands, the "Formation of dioxin in surface water" section is woefully incomplete, as it offers the reader very little information on the specific dioxins formed, or the results of the study that is referenced. Of the specific di-, tri-, and tetrachlorinated congeners formed in surface water (as reported in the Buth et al., 2010 paper referenced in this section), none are considered to have TCDD-equivalent "dioxin-like" toxicity properties as defined by the 1997 and 2005 WHO Dioxin Consensus Panels (see van den berg et al., 1998, 2006). Without the proper context, the word "dioxin" just acts as a boogey man. This criticism also applies to the "By-products" section, where there are a couple of sentences that lack appropriate context (for both the exposure and toxicity of the PCDD/F congener photoproducts of triclosan), not to mention references. If I can get around to it in the next couple weeks, I'll try to revise these sections to reflect what is known about the dioxin photo-conversion by products of triclosan. Jurban48 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio from WebMD

The following text was copied verbatim from the WebMD article that it cites: 

   In one study, recently accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and made
   available online, Isaac Pessah, PhD, director of the U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health, 
   looked at how triclosan may affect the brain. Pessah's test-tube study found that the chemical attached itself 
   to special "receptor" molecules on the surface of cells. This raises calcium levels inside the cell. Cells 
   overloaded with calcium get overexcited. In the brain, these overexcited cells may burn out neural circuits, 
   which could lead to an imbalance that affects mental development. Some people may carry a mutated gene that 
   makes it easier for triclosan to attach to their cells. That could make them more vulnerable to any effects 
   triclosan may cause.[1]

Hence, I've removed it from the page until someone can rewrite this in their own words and give it the (lesser) weight it deserves. 173.70.24.75 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Intestinal flora

Triclosan is absorbed through the skin and enters the intestinal tract, where digestion is facilitated and vitamins are produced by bacteria. Its effect on them is undoubtedly difficult to study, but if research has been done on this subject, it should be cited here. Unfree (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs an update

In April 2010 the FDA is reviewing the safety of triclosan. Physicsjock (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times did a piece on triclosan on 20 Aug 2011, Popular Antibacterial Chemical Raises Safety Issues, which quotes Dr. Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council questioning triclosan and Richard Theiler of Henkel (they make Dial soap) endorsing triclosan. EPA regulates triclosan as a pesticide.
At http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.htm FDA says, among other things, "At this time, FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water. Consumers concerned about using hand and body soaps with triclosan should wash with regular soap and water." - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bordering on hysterical

Doesn't matter if bacteria become resistant to it. You'll just be able to use other agents instead or in combination. The wholesale stopping of its use would have the exact same bacterial effect (i.e. bacteria not being *affected* by triclosan because you're not USING IT AT ALL) as if all bacteria in the universe suddenly became resistant to it. It's like saying you shouldn't use erythromycin anymore to treat gonorrhea because some strains of that are now resistant to it. So what. Use another antibiotic when the patient doesn't improve. Resistant bacteria are not super bugs that fly around like mighty mouse and suddenly have super powers that make them able to resist all the other stuff you can throw at them. It's specific to that agent. Other than the very objective chemical descriptions, the Hygiene Theory issues (always notable), and the part about thyroid disruption (which is real and similar to fluorides and bromine in how those displace iodine in the body), the article generally reads rather hysterical. OH, GOD! Canada and the EU might ban it soon! Yep, and they're also highly reactionary and paranoid, too. Go look at the EU electronics and electrical regulations that resulted in the discontinuing of tens of thousands of safe and effective consumer products. -Reticuli 66.178.144.245 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT Sorry, but it is not that easy, just to take another antibiotic - because it might not exist! Also, multiresisant bugs might be "suberbugs", more aggressive than the old ones, and also flying around. Did you miss the EHEC epedimy in Germany, 2011? Many people died. About fires in electronics: more people, during a much longer time, will be damaged by the chemicals than by the fires. We should not exchange acute local risk to chronic risk that noone can avoid. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of bold?

Why is this statement bolded? Doesn't seem to conform to style guidelines. Suggest it should be unbolded. "A comprehensive analysis from the University of Michigan School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade antibacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.202.84 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Triclocarban

Are triclocarban and triclosan related to each other chemically in any way? I see that the formulæ look similar but, not being a chemist, I have no idea of the significance of this. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much more a chemist but they are both aromatic organochlorides, specifically built around two separated phenyl groups. They seem to share an effect on bacterial cell membranes at least in part by binding to the same enzyme, but they'll also each have different interactions and fates. Whether they can be related in terms of synthesis, history or inspiration would be good additions to the articles for both; also whether they existed in the wild before we put them there. - toh 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toh (talk • contribs)

Antibiotic resistance

I think that it should be mention that there is a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS Pathogens in 2011 that demonstrates the correlation between triclosan and resistance to antibiotics in the opportunistic pathogen bacteria Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Triclosan upregulates the expression of a drug transporter increasing the efflux of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, norfloxacin and nalidixic acid, enhancing therefore the resistance of this bacteria to these antibiotics. http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1002103 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.245.40 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Products Containing Triclosan

Worthy of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Triclosan has been used since 1972, and it is present in soaps (0.10-1.00%), deodorants, toothpastes, mouth washes, and cleaning supplies, and is infused in an increasing number of consumer products, such as kitchen utensils, toys, bedding, socks, and trash bags". It appears that it would be an exceedingly long list, and would stand no chance whatsoever of being complete. What encyclopaedic benefit would ensue from such a list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is a cumbersome list. But given the questionable light that it has be cast in lately, and some products not being required to list the ingredients like the toys and bedding and socks, I believe some people would like to avoid products that contain this. You could leave out the products that list it on the label as we could deduce that for ourselves, I was only speaking about the products that do not list it as an ingredient. Thanks165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously an article about the chemical should detail all its known uses. I'm a little unclear on what your question is - are you satisfied with the current list or do we need more? Wnt (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
If products don't list Triclosan as an ingredient, what source could we possibly have for an assertion that it was being used? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this (are you disputing anything presently in the article?) but I see no reason why a secondary source might report that triclosan is used for some specific product or a general variety of product that doesn't list it on a label, whether by an alternate means of disclosure by the manufacturer or as the result of a third-party study. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So if I want to buy some toys or socks for my kid I have to call the mfgr from my cell phone?165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know for sure whether a particular brand of product contains Triclosan, contacting the manufacturer would seem a reasonable course of action. This is an encyclopaedia, not a database listing every substance used in the manufacture of every product marketed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. But not every substance used in the manufacture of every product marketed has the cloud of uncertainty over it like triclosan does right now. What about if the ingredient was plutonium? would that product list be worthy?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP isn't speaking the right wiki-language on this point... but it's a legitimate question about whether we list products that contain the substance. I think it's entirely appropriate to include categories of products that may include triclosan, but as Andy says, a list of products would be nuts on a number of levels. A very reasonable compromise is to include categories of products, preferably in a paragraph, that may include the substance. The beauty of prose is that it can say things like "occasionally in..." and "often in...". Shadowjams (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't really see how a useful list of categories of products could be compiled - it could never be exhaustive. We'd end up with a list of "some of the categories of things that might possibly contain triclosan". The presence of a 'category' on the list wouldn't help in finding out whether a particular example contained the substance, and neither would its absence. It would tell the reader precisely nothing regarding any specific product. And where are we supposed to get such information from anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
We have all sorts of lists that aren't exhaustive... and we'd get that information from reliable sources, as we usually should. You're arguing the implementation would be difficult, but apparently someone's willing to do the work to make that happen. I'm all for letting them. Just enforce the usual wikipedia standards. As for what would the list include... soaps, cleaning products, usual stuff. If someone adds triclosan to a spark plug we don't need to include that, but adding usual applications to an article is so common I'm baffled that it would be objectionable. Shadowjams (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Plastic production

Currently the triclosan article reads "The use of triclosan as an additive for plastic production for use in food packages has not been approved by the European Commission (EC).[15]". Since this reference in 2010, the exclusion of triclosan as an acceptable chemical for use in plastics was annulled in the case Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe Ltd) vs. European Commission, Case T-262/10 [2]. My question is, should we remove this sentence or update it?

Thank you! JBDJ2833 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

School project

Dear students, make sure that you find good sources - Googling is not good enough. Please advise editors of your plans or ideas here. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Dear Triclosan editors,

I am a student at Boston College taking a class on environmental disrupters of development. Part of our coursework entails expanding a wikipedia page. I am working with EDDendocrinelover1 and Row131er, who are classmates of mine. The following sections are a proposed plan for expanding the Triclosan article. We also plan to connect this article with triclocarban to elaborate how TCS and TCC are related. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

  1. Environmental Health Concerns
    1. Incomplete removal of TCS during wastewater treatment results in effluent and released biosolids with trace amounts of TCS, posing a potential environmental and and ecological hazard, particularly in aquatic systems.
  2. Developmental/Organism Health Concerns
  3. Bioaccumulation
    1. TCS tends to bioaccumulate in organisms although there has been shown to be a difference in accumulation between TCS and M-TCS. In human beings, TCS tends to bioaccumulate into brain, liver, and adipose tissues. The amount that it bioaccumulates is also affected by its ionization state in different environments.
  4. Breakdown of product and amount of it found in the world
    1. We plan to discuss the breakdown of TCS into other, potentially more hazardous and volatile, chemicals. Some by-products resist biodegradation or is not fully degraded and leads to environmental concerns. This will correlate to the environmental health and chemical composition sections.

Below is a current prospective list of references to inform the research.

References

Row131er (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A drug or not a drug?

Hi people, I think we need to change the chembox to a drugbox as triclosan is used topically as an antimicrobial, hence is arguably a medication. Thoughts? I should mention that I may do this on my own if this question goes unanswered for a while. Fuse809 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to some Talk page issues, April 2014

Dear all, Thank you for bringing up any issues on the Talk page. The triclosan page has been edited, including additions to policy, resistance concerns, health effects, breakdown, and bioaccumulation and environmental effects. The article now provides some connections to the triclocarban page and explains some similarities and differences between TCC and TCS. A thorough grammatical check has been done as well. Thank you again. Brichr1520 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Brichr1520

Health Concerns: Staph

I have three issues with this section.

Firstly, the title "Staph" is an abbreviation.

Secondly, "a relationship between triclosan and staph nasal colonization" could mean anything. Would the author please summarise the article. Does it promote colonisation, initiate it or reduce it?

Thirdly, is there any contradictory evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits of Nov 17, 2014

@Arnavchaudhary:, very nice to meet you. I don't believe that we have interacted before. With regard to our current disagreement, my issues are the following:

  1. I think most of the content I deleted is plausibly true. But high quality sources should be used for broad scientific statements that have policy implications, and not primary sources. The removal was based on the lack of quality sourceing and not on objection to the content per se
  2. I probably should not have undone your reversion. It's not my usual way of doing things. But you reverted my edits en masse with only the edit summary "large amounts of material deleted without explanation". I actually provided reasonably detailed explanations for my deletions for pretty much all of my edits. So I felt you mischaracterized my behavior, and that the reversion itself was effectively unexplained. That being said I have no desire to edit war, and would like to reach an understanding.

Your thoughts? Formerly 98 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible Ways to Improve the Page

While reading through this page, I found some places where the wording became very confusing. Some paragraphs begin with an opening sentence making one claim, but then went on to deny that very exact claim with a different source.

For example, in the effectiveness section it states that some studies show there is a difference in soaps with triclosan and others not. The next sentence should not state in addition as if it is supporting the entire previous sentence because it is only supporting half of it. Then the last sentence begins with more awkward phrasing, "according to the FDA" and then states the opposing side. I think the paragraph could have been worded more cohesively because it does contain very good information. Also, the alternatives section states another study concerning the effectiveness of triclosan in soaps and seems like it should belong in the effectiveness section instead.

A similar issue is seen in the Health Concerns section. The paragraph begins by stating that the FDA has no evidence that triclosan provides extra benefits, yet the final sentence of this paragraph states that it is marginally beneficial. It is confusing to the reader.

Again in the Endocrine Disruption section, the paragraph begins with how triclosan binds to human androgen and estrogen receptors and this is raising concerns regarding development and reproduction. The paragraph continues to state that this was shown in one of three studies and in one of four studies. Does this mean that the other two of three state a different results as well as the other three of four studies? It also states that these levels far exceed an amount that a human has been exposed to. All of the information following the opening sentence seems to lead to a different result than the one stated, that maybe triclosan is not actually something to be concerned about.

Lastly, I agree with previous statement about the contradictions on the bioaccumulation section. For one thing, this is the first mention of methyl-triclosan. There is no comment on how often triclosan is methylated. Again there seems to be a contradiction when referring to the pH levels.

Tracklete14 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

the current article is pretty crappy. it sourced way too much from primary sources and should be sourced from secondary ones, per WP:MEDRS. If you plan to work on this, please use secondary sources. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I found an error

The phrase "At a higher pH, triclosan is expected to bioaccumulate more significantly, while at a lower pH, methyl-triclosan is much more likely to bioaccumulate" is contradictory. It's either one or the other. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.26.35.98 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate, where you think there is an error. Please consider that triclosan is an acid, while methyl-triclosan isn't. --Leyo 11:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I was also bothered by the apparent contradiction. At high pH one would expect the phenolic hydrogen to be neutralized and the triclosan to become ionized, increasing its water solubility (as noted in the article under solubility). Bioaccumulation is usually due to partition of lipophilic substances into the lipid compartment of organisms in the food chain. Thus the lower pH should favor bioaccumulation of the lipophilic, unionized form of triclosan while at high pH triclosan should be water soluble and perhaps biodegradable.72.92.86.224 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement that is incorrect in the paper. --Leyo 10:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Triclosan is antibiotic?

Is it correct to call Triclosan as Antibiotic? Should it be included into list List_of_antibiotics? What class of antibiotics does it belong to? `a5b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I cant help with what class, but Safeguard (soap) is definitely proud of its status as an antibacterial soap and even won a competition against a bunch of others as the best of the corwd at killing MRSA. "Antibiotic" basically means a pill at least in America, but in cultureblind 100% technical medical terminology it would be true all that all antibacerial soaps are also antibiotics. —Soap— 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Endocrine disruption

Does anyone have access to the following reviews on endocrine disruption?

I think it would be good to add the conclusions to the article. --Leyo 10:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I can send them to you if you email me. You should only use the first one - we base health content on the most recent reviews. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
2010 reviews may be fine, too, e.g. if they cover aspects that are not covered in more recent reviews.
I thought that users who have recently removed content with the argument of lacking quality references may be interested of going through the review(s) and add the main points to the article (i.e. Formerly 98, ChemNerd and you). --Leyo 19:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't dispute that triclosan may be an endocrine disruptor. I only removed related content that was unreferenced in the version I edited. If someone wants to add endocrine disruptor content that is supported by proper reliable sources, I have no objection. ChemNerd (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The following article seems relevant wrt. endocrine disruption: "Prenatal Triclosan Exposure and Anthropometric Measures including Anogenital Distance in Danish Infants" http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/14-09637/ / http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409637 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.139.52 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

F.D.A. to ban it in the U.S.A.?

I briefly caught a news item on the news this morning that the F.D.A. is going to ban it here in the U.S.A., although I didn't see if it was to take effect immediately or if this is just the first round of an extensive bureaucratic kerfuffle. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved from article

I have moved the following content here because it lacks context/explanation. If anyone wants to use it to improve the article, here it is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

[[File:Triclosan synthesis.svg|thumb|center|700px|Triclosan synthesis (Example 4): E. Model, J. Bindler, {{US patent|3506720}} (1970 to [[Geigy]]).]]
  1. ^ "Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated". Retrieved 2008-03-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triclosan/Archive_1&oldid=1111243798"