This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tetraethyllead article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why does this page not mention the impact of tetraethyl on the atmosphere, in particular the ozone layer? This seems a rather glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoney11 ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed an error in the history section.
I worked for Ethyl Corp for 12 years.
Ethyl Corp was not formed by Dupont and General Motors. It was formed by General Motors and Standard Oil of New Jersey (ESSO). General Motors had the "use patent" for TEL as an antiknock, based on the work of Midgley and ESSO had the patent for the manufacture of TEL. Since the patents affected the marketing of TEL, General Motors and ESSO formed Ethyl Corp and each owner 50%. Since neither company had chemical plant experience, they hired Dupont to operate the manufacturing facilities. After patents ran out, Dupont started manufacture of TEL on their own and Ethyl started running their own operations. Some competition to those major producers came around 1960, but this was rather minor. --[User: Retired54) 8 June, 2007
I did not find any proof that the addition of TEL improved fuel economy to the degree indicated. Sources?
Leaded gasoline is not as illegal as you might think. While I don't think leaded gas is sold at the (automobile) pump anymore, genuine tetra-ethyl lead is available as an additive quite legally (although expensively) for those running old cars. In addition, AVGAS contains lead. I suspect some racing fuel might. In the United Kingdom I understand leaded four-star is still available at some petrol stations.
Some racing fuel, at least in the U.S., does contain lead. 68.231.184.217 ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is wrong; ("Even today, people should not buy high-octane fuel if their cars don't ping on the lower octane fuel" User:Eric Kvaalen.) One should buy the fuel specified as recommended or required in the OWNER'S MANUAL. BrianAlex ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I am deleting the following until there is a citation or other backup: "Some neurologists have speculated that the lead phaseout may have caused average IQ levels to rise by several points in the United States (by reducing cumulative brain damage throughout the population, especially in the young)." If someone can back it up, then by all means move it back. But until it's backed up, it actually weakens the article to insert excited statements like this without a citation.
how about this:
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):894-9.
Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an international pooled analysis.
Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, Yolton K, Baghurst P, Bellinger DC, Canfield RL, Dietrich KN, Bornschein R, Greene T, Rothenberg SJ, Needleman HL, Schnaas L, Wasserman G, Graziano J, Roberts R.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA. bruce.lamphear@cchmc.org
Lead is a confirmed neurotoxin, but questions remain about lead-associated intellectual deficits at blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL and whether lower exposures are, for a given change in exposure, associated with greater deficits. The objective of this study was to examine the association of intelligence test scores and blood lead concentration, especially for children who had maximal measured blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL. We examined data collected from 1,333 children who participated in seven international population-based longitudinal cohort studies, followed from birth or infancy until 5-10 years of age. The full-scale IQ score was the primary outcome measure. The geometric mean blood lead concentration of the children peaked at 17.8 microg/dL and declined to 9.4 microg/dL by 5-7 years of age; 244 (18%) children had a maximal blood lead concentration < 10 microg/dL, and 103 (8%) had a maximal blood lead concentration < 7.5 microg/dL. After adjustment for covariates, we found an inverse relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ score. Using a log-linear model, we found a 6.9 IQ point decrement [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.2-9.4] associated with an increase in concurrent blood lead levels from 2.4 to 30 microg/dL. The estimated IQ point decrements associated with an increase in blood lead from 2.4 to 10 microg/dL, 10 to 20 microg/dL, and 20 to 30 microg/dL were 3.9 (95% CI, 2.4-5.3), 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6), and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), respectively. For a given increase in blood lead, the lead-associated intellectual decrement for children with a maximal blood lead level < 7.5 microg/dL was significantly greater than that observed for those with a maximal blood lead level > or = 7.5 microg/dL (p = 0.015). We conclude that environmental lead exposure in children who have maximal blood lead levels < 7.5 microg/dL is associated with intellectual deficits.
PMID: 16002379 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Can't see where to insert this comment, so putting it here. It's sted ' In Europe, Professor Derek Bryce-Smith was among the first to highlight the potential dangers of TEL and became a leading campaigner for removal of lead additives from petrol' yet the UK is not on the list of countries with dates when it was removed from petrol. Derek Bryce-Smith was British by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.227.141 ( talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/#myths
This page has a lot about tetra-ethyl lead (the link jumps directly to the section Ten Myths About Leaded Gasoline).
At the very top of that page there is a link to another resource: http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf
This is a rather damning piece by William Kovarik about the role of industries in the whole tetra-ethyl lead thing.
134.173.57.118 ( talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The synthesis section states that TEL is produced by reactive a sodium-lead alloy with ethyl chloride. However, the formula given (4 NaPb + 4 CH3CH2Cl →...) implies the existence of a sodium lead compound (NaPb). Could someone check the reference given, and possibly explain how sodium and lead form a simple 1:1 compound? I'd expect to find oxygen in there too.-- Rossheth | Talk to me 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Explanation of engine knock is erroneous. Engine knock actually takes place during compression and ignition, rather than during the exhaust stroke. Refer to the wiki on ENGINE KNOCK. 198.190.156.119 ( talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The use of the hyphen in "Tetra-ethyl lead" seems awkward here, especially as the article title. As noted in this article, IUPAC does not use the hyphen (although I do not recommend their "tetraethyllead" here). The most natural nomenclature for this compound in this context would be "tetraethyl lead". Within the current vs. of the article there are at least five (5) inconsistencies in naming the titled compound, including a section heading. Primary sources cited in this article also use the suggested nomenclature. The American Chemical Society, a very influential and large publisher, does not recommend the use of hyphenated prefixes such as "tetra-", as is seen here. So I would suggest that the Wiki article title be recast to reflect a more commom usage, esp. as this compound was created and promoted right here in the USA. Jack B108 ( talk) 12:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I am not picking up strong opposition to moving (renaming) the page to "Tetraethyl lead". I propose to do this in a few days. Thanks for your input, Smokefoot. Jack B108 ( talk) 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)\
Wow, that was impolite, Rifleman 82. You renamed the entire page, a major change for which you made no notice whatsoever and made no attempt to even gather an opinion. In addition, the article content is now inconsistent with the new title of "tetraethyllead". You are using nomenclature that is not that of the country of origin of the compound or of the original manufacturer. I would urge you to revert these changes ASAP. Jack B108 ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the simple utility for renaming this page no longer works for me (apparently as both "tetraethyl lead" and "tetraethyllead" pages now exist), I am going to request that an administrator restore it to "tetraethyl lead", or the original and yes, awkward hyphenated form of that appellation. Getting rid of the hyphen was an improvement. However, WP:MOVE policy guidelines and just plain common courtesy were violated. Rifleman 82 was not just made the boss of this page: this is Wikipedia. At least there is article consistency now, apparently, now, judging from the edit history. Jack B108 ( talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Tetraethyllead → Tetraethyl lead — On June 25, the page "Tetra-ethyl lead" was abruptly renamed, a major change. The new name is not the common name and is also inconsistent with the name used in other WP articles, such as Ethyl Corporation and Thomas Midgely. Jack B108 ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, the world's most popular and acccesible encyclopedia. It isn't the journal of Organometallics or other journal meant for experts, it is a place where someone with an eighth grade education can look up something, say "tetraethyl lead", and learn about it. If WP doesn't hold firm and publish entries by their common name, then IMHO it is not doing its readers a service. I think it is quite clear that "tetraethyl lead" (or the "tetra-ethyl" variant) is the common name in use around the world, and I haven't heard one person here dispute that claim. As it should, WP most generally publishes entries by the common name, and I firmly believe we should continue to do so here. I might add that the vs. I am arguing for is the one the Webster's College dictionary, used by the AP, ACS Publications (LOL), etc., uses to index this compound. This is an important entry for the general use of the public. Jack B108 ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
without spaces | with spaces | |
---|---|---|
organic | substitutive | functional class |
inorganic | additive | compositional |
I prefer "tetraethyllead" over the alternatives. It's consistent with many of our other articles on similar substances, for example butyllithium, phenylmagnesium bromide, dimethylmercury, diethylzinc, triethylaluminium, tributyltin, hexamethyltungsten, and so on.
Procedural issue note on outcome of the page name change issue: Someone comes along, obviously having little concern what other opinions might be regarding this entry, and renames the page. Technically (to my limited knowledge), this edit can't simply be reverted by a regular user (like it can be with other edits). Then someone else (me) complains, and we have a "debate". WP admin, don't you think the playing field for the debate was set up unfairly? This page name should have immediately been reverted to its original name B4 the major change with no notice or discussion, and then the debate should have occurred over that move. I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but it would have been a lot more on the "up and up". I would note that it is the general policy of WP to use common names for article indexing. Now we no longer have the common name, not even close, and this entry is now inconsistent with the other linked WP entries (T. Midgley and Ethyl Corp., to start). Bad editing and form, IMHO. Jack B108 ( talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack B108 ( talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I went to this current TEL article reference (ref 6 today),
"Blood Lead Levels in Young Children--United States and Selected States, 1996--1999 (2000). (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved on 8-17-2009." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4950a3.htm#tab1
scanned it, and found little reason to support the formation of this statement from the study:
"In a 2000 U.S. study, the highest blood lead levels were about 27 μg/dL (county averages)."
Unless I have read the CDC report wrongly, I would suggest the sentence and reference be removed, as the sentence appears to have erroneous information in it (27 micrograms/deciliter??? No, it is 27 percent (%) for highest county percentage, from Figure 1). Jack B108 ( talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say alcohol absorbs water from the air; "causing fuel system corrosion". Unless very saturated with water, alcohol forms a miscible azeotrope with it. It can then pass freely thru the fuel system, not impeding flow. Fuel drying agents contain Methanol for that exact purpose.
Also, what Is the octane rating of Tetraethyl Lead? I assume it can't be burned directly, like iso-octane, but can't the percentages used to raise octane be extrapolated to calculate this? 68.231.184.217 ( talk) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that leaded gas is still available in Algeria, yet is totally banned continent-wide in Africa. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.172.40 ( talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Not quite gone in Algeria yet, supposed to be soon.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/africa-adopts-continent-wide-sustainable-transport-agenda 67.249.140.141 ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Too bad this article is a mass mess of contradictory claims. I don't know and don't really care too much if TEL is still being used as an anti-knock agent. I'd guess that unless all (Internal Combustion) engines that need it are banned, that it is being used. (It's also pretty simple to make.) TEL isn't just used in gasoline, but that widely used substance was the main vector for it contaminating the Earth's surface and waters. The article needs to be rewritten and contradictions removed. It seems nobody cares enough to bother, I know I don't. 98.21.68.176 ( talk) 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This edit changed the word "seat" to "seal." Is this correct, given that the item in question is commonly known as a valve seat? SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Done on 01:53, 12 June 2013 by anonymous. 75.208.167.64 ( talk) 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are several problems here. One is the the lead, or opening section, summarizes the body of the article. So the lung cancer would go in the body first, then if it seems important enough, would be summarized in the lead. Second, your source says the "EPA has determined that lead is a probable cancer-causing agent." It doesn't mention lung cancer in connection to Tetraethyllead. It also attributes this to EPA, which we would also need to do. Finally, your ref wasn't properly formatted, but I'd be happy to fix that for you. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to mention ethanol in the intro, so I moved it. If it does need to be mentioned in the intro, we need to get our story straight in the body, then summarize it in the intro. Right now it almost looks like we're contradicting ourselves ("corrosive to the steel"? unspecified "commercial reasons"?). Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss here before adding information about TEL being a carcinogen. The source being cited does not even mention TEL. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I took out the part about "When both leaded and unleaded fuels were available at a given service station, the unleaded type was commonly labeled as 'regular' in the US and 'unleaded' elsewhere." This is not true. In the US, the choices were "Regular" (leaded) and "Unleaded". You can see the choice of fuel types in this photo from 1972: [4] Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tetraethyllead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
it have never been illegal in norway. it have however lost popularity and very few places sells it these days. i heard that they were going to make cars that uses leaded fuel more expensive to own. i never heard of a ban and i have lived in norway since before the date that is listed. the sentence about leaded fuel being banned in norway should therefore be removed as it is not true. 84.212.111.156 ( talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that tetraethyl lead was adopted because it was more profitable then ethanol is a rather biassed view. At that time , the USA didn't produce enough grain to make sufficient alcohol to act as an anti knock additive for gasoline. Alcohol has to be added in large quantity to effectively raise the octane rating of gasoline. Tetraethyl lead is added in very small quantities and, at the time, was the best option. At the time everyone knew that alcohol was effective as an anti-knock agent. Anyone could have used it but they didn't because the fuel consumption would rise dramatically as alcohol has a lower calorific value than gasoline. There were great protests about the toxicity at the time, but it came into use and not many died, to protests declined. Latterly toxicity was again raised as an issue and better gasoline formulations were derived that overcame the need to use lead.
The current source for the statement "TEL offered the business advantage of being commercially profitable because its use for this purpose could be patented." is quite poor. It mentions "patent" only once in the body text, and it's a reference to the patent text predicting future changes in anti-knock approaches. This article from the Organometallics journal appears to be a much better source, as it extensively covers the activity around the patents. However, I don't know the best way to make this change; citations have changed a lot since I last edited frequently. davidstrauss ( talk) 07:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There are 2 sections within this article mentioning 'phase-out' with a potential doubling up of information within this article.
I was considering doing a CE and merging the sections 'Phase out and ban" and "Controversy and phase out".
Any thoughts on this proposal?
Textualism ( talk | contribs) 13:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like, this has got the "Chemical agents" category or whatever you'd call it on it, which appears to be a list of chemical warfare agents, but there's no mention in the main text of the article of it ever having been used as a chemical weapon and from a quick Web search I can't find any mention of it ever having been used as one - maybe someone misread what the "Chemical agents" category was for. Wombat140 ( talk) 02:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This article contains a series of contradictions. It's bad, really bad. The toxicity section claims 6 ml of TEL is "enough to induce severe lead poisoning". I'm not sure if its more laughable or pathetic. First of all, while it's reasonable to assume the claim refers to humans, I'm betting 6 ml injected into the brain of a 1 day old infant would have significantly different results than 6 ml delivered via a rectal suppository to a 200 pound adult. What do you think, is route of administration important? Hey, how about this: why not pretend to try to conform to the standards of toxicology? Species, route, dose PER KILOGRAM for a start. 98.21.68.176 ( talk) 23:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tetraethyllead article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why does this page not mention the impact of tetraethyl on the atmosphere, in particular the ozone layer? This seems a rather glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoney11 ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed an error in the history section.
I worked for Ethyl Corp for 12 years.
Ethyl Corp was not formed by Dupont and General Motors. It was formed by General Motors and Standard Oil of New Jersey (ESSO). General Motors had the "use patent" for TEL as an antiknock, based on the work of Midgley and ESSO had the patent for the manufacture of TEL. Since the patents affected the marketing of TEL, General Motors and ESSO formed Ethyl Corp and each owner 50%. Since neither company had chemical plant experience, they hired Dupont to operate the manufacturing facilities. After patents ran out, Dupont started manufacture of TEL on their own and Ethyl started running their own operations. Some competition to those major producers came around 1960, but this was rather minor. --[User: Retired54) 8 June, 2007
I did not find any proof that the addition of TEL improved fuel economy to the degree indicated. Sources?
Leaded gasoline is not as illegal as you might think. While I don't think leaded gas is sold at the (automobile) pump anymore, genuine tetra-ethyl lead is available as an additive quite legally (although expensively) for those running old cars. In addition, AVGAS contains lead. I suspect some racing fuel might. In the United Kingdom I understand leaded four-star is still available at some petrol stations.
Some racing fuel, at least in the U.S., does contain lead. 68.231.184.217 ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is wrong; ("Even today, people should not buy high-octane fuel if their cars don't ping on the lower octane fuel" User:Eric Kvaalen.) One should buy the fuel specified as recommended or required in the OWNER'S MANUAL. BrianAlex ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I am deleting the following until there is a citation or other backup: "Some neurologists have speculated that the lead phaseout may have caused average IQ levels to rise by several points in the United States (by reducing cumulative brain damage throughout the population, especially in the young)." If someone can back it up, then by all means move it back. But until it's backed up, it actually weakens the article to insert excited statements like this without a citation.
how about this:
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):894-9.
Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an international pooled analysis.
Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, Yolton K, Baghurst P, Bellinger DC, Canfield RL, Dietrich KN, Bornschein R, Greene T, Rothenberg SJ, Needleman HL, Schnaas L, Wasserman G, Graziano J, Roberts R.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA. bruce.lamphear@cchmc.org
Lead is a confirmed neurotoxin, but questions remain about lead-associated intellectual deficits at blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL and whether lower exposures are, for a given change in exposure, associated with greater deficits. The objective of this study was to examine the association of intelligence test scores and blood lead concentration, especially for children who had maximal measured blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL. We examined data collected from 1,333 children who participated in seven international population-based longitudinal cohort studies, followed from birth or infancy until 5-10 years of age. The full-scale IQ score was the primary outcome measure. The geometric mean blood lead concentration of the children peaked at 17.8 microg/dL and declined to 9.4 microg/dL by 5-7 years of age; 244 (18%) children had a maximal blood lead concentration < 10 microg/dL, and 103 (8%) had a maximal blood lead concentration < 7.5 microg/dL. After adjustment for covariates, we found an inverse relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ score. Using a log-linear model, we found a 6.9 IQ point decrement [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.2-9.4] associated with an increase in concurrent blood lead levels from 2.4 to 30 microg/dL. The estimated IQ point decrements associated with an increase in blood lead from 2.4 to 10 microg/dL, 10 to 20 microg/dL, and 20 to 30 microg/dL were 3.9 (95% CI, 2.4-5.3), 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6), and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), respectively. For a given increase in blood lead, the lead-associated intellectual decrement for children with a maximal blood lead level < 7.5 microg/dL was significantly greater than that observed for those with a maximal blood lead level > or = 7.5 microg/dL (p = 0.015). We conclude that environmental lead exposure in children who have maximal blood lead levels < 7.5 microg/dL is associated with intellectual deficits.
PMID: 16002379 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Can't see where to insert this comment, so putting it here. It's sted ' In Europe, Professor Derek Bryce-Smith was among the first to highlight the potential dangers of TEL and became a leading campaigner for removal of lead additives from petrol' yet the UK is not on the list of countries with dates when it was removed from petrol. Derek Bryce-Smith was British by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.227.141 ( talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/#myths
This page has a lot about tetra-ethyl lead (the link jumps directly to the section Ten Myths About Leaded Gasoline).
At the very top of that page there is a link to another resource: http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf
This is a rather damning piece by William Kovarik about the role of industries in the whole tetra-ethyl lead thing.
134.173.57.118 ( talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The synthesis section states that TEL is produced by reactive a sodium-lead alloy with ethyl chloride. However, the formula given (4 NaPb + 4 CH3CH2Cl →...) implies the existence of a sodium lead compound (NaPb). Could someone check the reference given, and possibly explain how sodium and lead form a simple 1:1 compound? I'd expect to find oxygen in there too.-- Rossheth | Talk to me 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Explanation of engine knock is erroneous. Engine knock actually takes place during compression and ignition, rather than during the exhaust stroke. Refer to the wiki on ENGINE KNOCK. 198.190.156.119 ( talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The use of the hyphen in "Tetra-ethyl lead" seems awkward here, especially as the article title. As noted in this article, IUPAC does not use the hyphen (although I do not recommend their "tetraethyllead" here). The most natural nomenclature for this compound in this context would be "tetraethyl lead". Within the current vs. of the article there are at least five (5) inconsistencies in naming the titled compound, including a section heading. Primary sources cited in this article also use the suggested nomenclature. The American Chemical Society, a very influential and large publisher, does not recommend the use of hyphenated prefixes such as "tetra-", as is seen here. So I would suggest that the Wiki article title be recast to reflect a more commom usage, esp. as this compound was created and promoted right here in the USA. Jack B108 ( talk) 12:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I am not picking up strong opposition to moving (renaming) the page to "Tetraethyl lead". I propose to do this in a few days. Thanks for your input, Smokefoot. Jack B108 ( talk) 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)\
Wow, that was impolite, Rifleman 82. You renamed the entire page, a major change for which you made no notice whatsoever and made no attempt to even gather an opinion. In addition, the article content is now inconsistent with the new title of "tetraethyllead". You are using nomenclature that is not that of the country of origin of the compound or of the original manufacturer. I would urge you to revert these changes ASAP. Jack B108 ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the simple utility for renaming this page no longer works for me (apparently as both "tetraethyl lead" and "tetraethyllead" pages now exist), I am going to request that an administrator restore it to "tetraethyl lead", or the original and yes, awkward hyphenated form of that appellation. Getting rid of the hyphen was an improvement. However, WP:MOVE policy guidelines and just plain common courtesy were violated. Rifleman 82 was not just made the boss of this page: this is Wikipedia. At least there is article consistency now, apparently, now, judging from the edit history. Jack B108 ( talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Tetraethyllead → Tetraethyl lead — On June 25, the page "Tetra-ethyl lead" was abruptly renamed, a major change. The new name is not the common name and is also inconsistent with the name used in other WP articles, such as Ethyl Corporation and Thomas Midgely. Jack B108 ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, the world's most popular and acccesible encyclopedia. It isn't the journal of Organometallics or other journal meant for experts, it is a place where someone with an eighth grade education can look up something, say "tetraethyl lead", and learn about it. If WP doesn't hold firm and publish entries by their common name, then IMHO it is not doing its readers a service. I think it is quite clear that "tetraethyl lead" (or the "tetra-ethyl" variant) is the common name in use around the world, and I haven't heard one person here dispute that claim. As it should, WP most generally publishes entries by the common name, and I firmly believe we should continue to do so here. I might add that the vs. I am arguing for is the one the Webster's College dictionary, used by the AP, ACS Publications (LOL), etc., uses to index this compound. This is an important entry for the general use of the public. Jack B108 ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
without spaces | with spaces | |
---|---|---|
organic | substitutive | functional class |
inorganic | additive | compositional |
I prefer "tetraethyllead" over the alternatives. It's consistent with many of our other articles on similar substances, for example butyllithium, phenylmagnesium bromide, dimethylmercury, diethylzinc, triethylaluminium, tributyltin, hexamethyltungsten, and so on.
Procedural issue note on outcome of the page name change issue: Someone comes along, obviously having little concern what other opinions might be regarding this entry, and renames the page. Technically (to my limited knowledge), this edit can't simply be reverted by a regular user (like it can be with other edits). Then someone else (me) complains, and we have a "debate". WP admin, don't you think the playing field for the debate was set up unfairly? This page name should have immediately been reverted to its original name B4 the major change with no notice or discussion, and then the debate should have occurred over that move. I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but it would have been a lot more on the "up and up". I would note that it is the general policy of WP to use common names for article indexing. Now we no longer have the common name, not even close, and this entry is now inconsistent with the other linked WP entries (T. Midgley and Ethyl Corp., to start). Bad editing and form, IMHO. Jack B108 ( talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack B108 ( talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I went to this current TEL article reference (ref 6 today),
"Blood Lead Levels in Young Children--United States and Selected States, 1996--1999 (2000). (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved on 8-17-2009." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4950a3.htm#tab1
scanned it, and found little reason to support the formation of this statement from the study:
"In a 2000 U.S. study, the highest blood lead levels were about 27 μg/dL (county averages)."
Unless I have read the CDC report wrongly, I would suggest the sentence and reference be removed, as the sentence appears to have erroneous information in it (27 micrograms/deciliter??? No, it is 27 percent (%) for highest county percentage, from Figure 1). Jack B108 ( talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say alcohol absorbs water from the air; "causing fuel system corrosion". Unless very saturated with water, alcohol forms a miscible azeotrope with it. It can then pass freely thru the fuel system, not impeding flow. Fuel drying agents contain Methanol for that exact purpose.
Also, what Is the octane rating of Tetraethyl Lead? I assume it can't be burned directly, like iso-octane, but can't the percentages used to raise octane be extrapolated to calculate this? 68.231.184.217 ( talk) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that leaded gas is still available in Algeria, yet is totally banned continent-wide in Africa. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.172.40 ( talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Not quite gone in Algeria yet, supposed to be soon.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/africa-adopts-continent-wide-sustainable-transport-agenda 67.249.140.141 ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Too bad this article is a mass mess of contradictory claims. I don't know and don't really care too much if TEL is still being used as an anti-knock agent. I'd guess that unless all (Internal Combustion) engines that need it are banned, that it is being used. (It's also pretty simple to make.) TEL isn't just used in gasoline, but that widely used substance was the main vector for it contaminating the Earth's surface and waters. The article needs to be rewritten and contradictions removed. It seems nobody cares enough to bother, I know I don't. 98.21.68.176 ( talk) 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This edit changed the word "seat" to "seal." Is this correct, given that the item in question is commonly known as a valve seat? SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Done on 01:53, 12 June 2013 by anonymous. 75.208.167.64 ( talk) 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are several problems here. One is the the lead, or opening section, summarizes the body of the article. So the lung cancer would go in the body first, then if it seems important enough, would be summarized in the lead. Second, your source says the "EPA has determined that lead is a probable cancer-causing agent." It doesn't mention lung cancer in connection to Tetraethyllead. It also attributes this to EPA, which we would also need to do. Finally, your ref wasn't properly formatted, but I'd be happy to fix that for you. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to mention ethanol in the intro, so I moved it. If it does need to be mentioned in the intro, we need to get our story straight in the body, then summarize it in the intro. Right now it almost looks like we're contradicting ourselves ("corrosive to the steel"? unspecified "commercial reasons"?). Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss here before adding information about TEL being a carcinogen. The source being cited does not even mention TEL. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I took out the part about "When both leaded and unleaded fuels were available at a given service station, the unleaded type was commonly labeled as 'regular' in the US and 'unleaded' elsewhere." This is not true. In the US, the choices were "Regular" (leaded) and "Unleaded". You can see the choice of fuel types in this photo from 1972: [4] Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tetraethyllead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
it have never been illegal in norway. it have however lost popularity and very few places sells it these days. i heard that they were going to make cars that uses leaded fuel more expensive to own. i never heard of a ban and i have lived in norway since before the date that is listed. the sentence about leaded fuel being banned in norway should therefore be removed as it is not true. 84.212.111.156 ( talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that tetraethyl lead was adopted because it was more profitable then ethanol is a rather biassed view. At that time , the USA didn't produce enough grain to make sufficient alcohol to act as an anti knock additive for gasoline. Alcohol has to be added in large quantity to effectively raise the octane rating of gasoline. Tetraethyl lead is added in very small quantities and, at the time, was the best option. At the time everyone knew that alcohol was effective as an anti-knock agent. Anyone could have used it but they didn't because the fuel consumption would rise dramatically as alcohol has a lower calorific value than gasoline. There were great protests about the toxicity at the time, but it came into use and not many died, to protests declined. Latterly toxicity was again raised as an issue and better gasoline formulations were derived that overcame the need to use lead.
The current source for the statement "TEL offered the business advantage of being commercially profitable because its use for this purpose could be patented." is quite poor. It mentions "patent" only once in the body text, and it's a reference to the patent text predicting future changes in anti-knock approaches. This article from the Organometallics journal appears to be a much better source, as it extensively covers the activity around the patents. However, I don't know the best way to make this change; citations have changed a lot since I last edited frequently. davidstrauss ( talk) 07:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There are 2 sections within this article mentioning 'phase-out' with a potential doubling up of information within this article.
I was considering doing a CE and merging the sections 'Phase out and ban" and "Controversy and phase out".
Any thoughts on this proposal?
Textualism ( talk | contribs) 13:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like, this has got the "Chemical agents" category or whatever you'd call it on it, which appears to be a list of chemical warfare agents, but there's no mention in the main text of the article of it ever having been used as a chemical weapon and from a quick Web search I can't find any mention of it ever having been used as one - maybe someone misread what the "Chemical agents" category was for. Wombat140 ( talk) 02:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This article contains a series of contradictions. It's bad, really bad. The toxicity section claims 6 ml of TEL is "enough to induce severe lead poisoning". I'm not sure if its more laughable or pathetic. First of all, while it's reasonable to assume the claim refers to humans, I'm betting 6 ml injected into the brain of a 1 day old infant would have significantly different results than 6 ml delivered via a rectal suppository to a 200 pound adult. What do you think, is route of administration important? Hey, how about this: why not pretend to try to conform to the standards of toxicology? Species, route, dose PER KILOGRAM for a start. 98.21.68.176 ( talk) 23:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)