Talk:Acetic acid

-ise or -ize?

This article uses -ize spellings (ie. recognized, civilization) for the first few paragraphs, and then goes in a transition to using -ise endings (ie. synthesised, oxidised). Note that the use of -yse endings such as those in catalyse is the only spelling acceptable in any form of British English; whether it is (Standard) British English (using -ise), or Oxford English (using -ize). Although both -ise and -ize are acceptable for use in an article using British English, you can't start with one spelling system in the introduction and then change for the rest of it, as this article currently does (it is especially unacceptable in a Featured Article!).

It could be argued that using -ise endings is preferable as the first revisions of this article use British spellings such as colourless, so using Standard British English would be more legitimate. This is what the admin previously did to standardise the page's spelling.

However, as the study of chemistry is international - best shown by using the spellings of aluminium but also sulfur - I would personally favour using Oxford English. This is the spelling which international organisations such as the UN use, and is viewed by many as a sort of compromise between Standard Br. English and Standard Am. English. It is also the version of English used by the UK's most authoritative publisher, Oxford University Press, the largest university press in the world, and publisher of the world's most authoritative dictionary.

The section above discussing whether British English or American English should be used is inconclusive with this and in some ways incorrect (current Br. English spelling practice favours -ise despite OED's stance, and there aren't any spelling mistakes in the edit made), so I thought it would be worth bringing up this issue to finalise it and choose which style of Br. English to use.

Swedish fusilier (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article was promoted to FA on 13 November 2005, over two years ago. It definitely needs some LTC and grooming. I'll give it a short brush, and make it consistent spelling again. IIRC, it is in non-OED Br-Eng, although my personal favourite is also Ox-Eng. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
• I did the general cleanup of the article, but I'm not sure about the appropriate spelling. I might just as well have been OED spelling after all. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
• . Yep, it is now consistenly in OED. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Still needs cleanup

Lots of weasel words, vague language in places, language too prosaic for an encyclopedia entry elsewhere. Many points are repeated a number of times; related points are not grouped together.

Poor quality for a featured article.

71.241.81.221 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article has been Featured for over two years. FA required have significantly altered in that timeframe. Your improvement proposals will be highly appreciated. Feel free to augment the article as you deem appropriate, preferably from a personalized account for optimal communication. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Expansion on freezing?

I have definitely heard before that acetic acid expands on freezing. Why then is a higher density given for the solid phase than for the liquid? Are these accurate figures? http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/acglac.htm Bbi5291 (talk) 00:28, 1 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 careful 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) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Solid?

Can an acid be a solid at room temperature? As an example, salt and vinegar-flavored potato chips use distilled white vinegar that has been evaporated into a powder. But neither the acid article nor the acetic acid article mention that an acid can be a powder at room temperature. Can we get some clarification about this ab toh articles? Badagnani (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an acid be a solid at room temperature? Yes, it behaves somewhat like water with a melting point much closer to room temperature (16.5 °C). However, that is true only works for more or less pure, water-free acetic acid, not for vinegar. That potato-chip evaporated vinegar just means that all acetic acid and water has been removed from the vinegar, leaving behind aroma compounds and other goo that was dissolved in it. Cacycle (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the vinegar was already distilled, which compounds would those be? The flavor is extremely strong. Badagnani (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course this would not make sense with distilled vinegar. It is actually the leftover waste from producing distilled vinegar. Cacycle (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sodium acetate page says "Sodium acetate is the chemical that gives salt and vinegar chips (crisps) their flavor." However, this ingredient is not listed in the ingredient list. Thus, does that mean that dehydrating distilled white vinegar produces this socium compound? Badagnani (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the food industry calls sodium acetate dehydrated vinegar. It certainly makes it sound less "chemical" and more edible. :) If they literally mean dehydrated, then dehydrated vinegar is basically acetic acid, which is liquid at room temperature. However, even though chips look "dry", they still can have some liquid absorbed. Especially if you consider how strong concentrated acetic acid smells, I guess you would only need a drop or two per bag of chips to give them flavor! --Itub (talk)

Sodium acetate, when evaporated with an excess of acetic acid, forms a fairly stable diacetate: NaH(CH₃COO)₂. When evaporated from aqueous solution, sodium acetate crystallizes with three moles of water (trihydrate), the "diacetate" crystallizes with two moles of water and one mole of acetic acid. Sodium diacetate is the flavoring agent used in "salt and vinegar" foods. Norm Reitzel (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

References

• [1]
• doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)71632-2
• [2]--Stone (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

It's a very minor point as the two words are synonyms, but shouldn't this be under the title "ethanoic acid" with acetic acid given as an alternative? Whilst we all know what acetic acid is, ethanoic acid has been the correct term in all scientific works for a good many decades. Just as we now use ethanol and methanol rather than ethyl and methyl alcohol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.126 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would second this motion and seek to reassert its point (as a year has passed). The IUPAC naming conventions would give its name as ethanoic acid; as these are the international standards, surely this should be the title with acetic acid mentioned as an alternative and a reroute. Tory88 (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The IUPAC naming convention that gives Acetic acid was 1993, this has surely been superceeded by the 2004 one that gives the systematic name ethanoic acid? The article should be moved to this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.135 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the sidebar make a distinction between "systematic name" and "IUPAC name", but then both of them link to the same article, which mentions "systematic name" just once, defining it to be "IUPAC name"?

Totally confusing. Label "acetic acid" as "previous IUPAC name", "everyday name", "trivial name", "common name" or make them equal-value synonyms, but don't distinguish "systematic name" from "IUPAC name" while saying that they are the same. I had to come to the talk page to understand what was going on. 84.227.250.30 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ka at Equilibrium Inclusion

If there are no objections we should include the Equilibrium Ka value on the table on the right side. ka = 1.8*10∧-5.Moadeeb 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moadeeb (talk • contribs)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, per consensus and common sense Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Acetic acid → Ethanoic acid — The article should be at the correct IUPAC name. 75.15.161.185 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. "Acetic acid" is the common name (see WP:COMMONNAME) and the IUPAC preferred name. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The IUPAC preferred name is ethanoic acid, not acetic acid. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Acetic acid is the preferred IUPAC name and the "retained name". -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To substitute a common name which is used everywhere by a systematic one should be avoided.--Stone (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in concurrence with opinions above. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is targeted at a general audience, and acetic acid is the most regular name used by the general audience to refer to the substance. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Wikipedia uses common names over IUPAC names, e.g. Caffeine not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione as an example at WP:COMMONNAME. –CWenger (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- Wikipedia prefers common names, and the IUPAC prefers this retained name over the systematic one. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Google scholar search for publications with ethanoic acid in the title published after 2000 gives 31 hits
• Google scholar search for publications with acetic acid in the title published after 2000 gives 6990 hits

For me this looks like even the scientists do not like the name. --Stone (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the common name takes precedence over the IUPAC name here, why is the reverse true at aluminum? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NO! The common name is the preferred name of IUPAC and of scientists! --Stone (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because that is not a dispute between the common name and a systematic one, but between the British and American spellings of the same common name. It's not the same thing at all. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The infobox needs fixing

The ChEMBL section has a big fat red X next to it. Someone who knows his or her stuff should have a look at it. Avengah (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The abbreviation AcO does not make sense. It should be AcH and AcOH in that box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.205.129 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As a USA chemist, I've never encountered the abbreviation AcOH. It is, here, always HOAc. The infobox entry should either list both (if anyone can justify AcOH) or simply list it as HOAc. {note in added proof: the first book I grabbed, Principles of Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Hamill et al., 1966, pg 268, uses HOAc to represent the undissociated acid. (and I'm certain there are many others I can cite.} I should also note the abbreviation MeCOOH also represents it.207.155.85.22 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

British hijacking everything

I understand it drives the brits batshit for a population of 308 million to have a predominent spelling over a population of 60mil (about 120million if you include the rest of the western colonies and austrailia) but could you at least have the american measurements off to the side? Im getting pretty annoyed about having our measurements not even in a box to the right on some pages >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you would like to see changed? The article already includes, for example, °F next to °C (in most places ... I added a few more). Anything else? 71.185.49.174 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Biochemistry by design?

May I suggest a change in the biochemistry section from the following sentence: "However, the concentration of free acetic acid in cells is kept at a low level to avoid disrupting the control of the pH of the cell contents." To the following (or something similar): "However, the concentration of free acetic acid in cells is kept at a low level, with the result that it has little influence on the pH of cell contents." I don't want to get into a Creationism versus Darwinism debate, but whichever way you look at it, the original sentence is a bit teleological and claims a mechanism of which we cannot be certain. We can't be sure that God's motive in arraning for low levels of free acetic acid was because He was concerned about pH, nor can we be sure that the mechanisms by which free acetate is kept low were the result of evolutionary pressure from acidification of the cell contents. There might be other reasons why the evolution of such mechanisms was favoured, not connected with pH. I know it's a minor nit-picky point, but this article is currently rated as a show-case of the very best Wikipedia can achieve, and woolly teleological statements in biology can be very harmful; teleology should be discouraged (but please, no offence intended to the original author). 149.155.96.5 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Acetic acid as a glass cleaner

Acetic acid is also used as a glass cleaner, both commercially and in many DIY formulations made with vinegar and dish detergent. For example, Bullseye Glass http://www.bullseyeglass.com/pdf/other_tech/glass_cleaning_basics.pdf recommends Spartan 3060 as a cleaner which won't leave streaks on fused glass http://www.bullseyeglass.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=178. Spartan's MSDF http://www.spartanchemical.com/spartan/msds/USA/English/3060.pdf provides its approximate formulation (Isopropanol, Acetic acid and nonionic detergent, used diluted 1:20). Note: this is not an Ad, just an illustration with examples. Streaks remaining on glass after thermal fusing are a significant issue with cleaner selection. PS. I don't contribute much, couldn't get <refs> to come out right. JamesBowlin (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that SLS (sodium lauryl sulfate) and similar detergents are in more common use for cleaning glassware in laboratories than cleaning mixtures, where chemically-active residues are not wanted. David Spector (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Who invented this abbreviation?

When I was on the page for ethanoic acid, I read that it is „commonly“ abbreviated as Ac. I am not against the abbreviated of majuscule A & minuscule c [a very nice & convenient abbreviation if you ask me,] but accoding to scientific rules of chemical nomenclature, an abbreviation of a chemical shall only contain elements, not compounds. There is even an interesting category of the naming of chemicals. Throughout my study of chemistry, I have never encountered exceptions to these rules [nor have I ever encountered the abbreviation of Ac, except only for the element 89. All I am asking if you can please provide with a reliable reference to your claim, say an updated book that includes & describes the abbreviation.

Also, if it is not too much to ask can you also [anyone] fix the synonyms for the page Acetic anhydride. Ethyl_acetate, [though the chemical structure to acetic acid], is not the synonym for acetate anhydride. So, „Ethanoyl ethanoate“ is not the synonym for Acetate anhydride. As you can read by the chemical name itself, the suffix „-ide“ [being a single atom anion] is not the same as „-ate“ [being a polyatomic anion.] Then again, you can reference back to the derivative of acetic acid, acetate & argue the same. So, please: All I ask for everyone in Wikipedia is not to edit Wikipedia without assurance of reliable information, which means everyone needs to do their job to research before editing the page. Use the playground to carry out any mischievous experiments. Thank you.

序名三「Jyonasan」 ^Talk_Stalk 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

You must not have spent much time in the field if you have never encountered such abbreviations. These abbreviations (Me, Et, Pr, Bu, Ac, etc.) are widely used, and are accepted by custom, if not by some IUPAC rule. If I can find a list of such abbreviations I will use it to reference the article, but what we have is correct.

Where is "ethyl acetate" in acetic anhydride? Ethanoyl ethanoate would be the equivalent for acetic acetate, using systematic nomenclature. Not pretty, but it's fine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly outdated information

The section "Production" shows the distribution of global production by method as of 2005 (as can be seen from the reference article). 6 years have gone, it's considerable time. Could someone update the information? Thanks in advance! I'm sorry for previously incorrectly set question. The information appears to be much newer than I thought.
The pKa for the compound is slightly off. It should be adjusted to 4.7447. --46.109.99.15 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (edited by myself)

--46.109.99.15 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that (I am somewhat skeptical about this high accuracy)? Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a plastic bottle?

Why is there a photo of a plastic bottle with a clear liquid in it? What does it teach us about acetic acid?

It teaches us that the solution is colorless, of course. I like the image. If there is a better image for suggesting other properties, such as acidity and odor, please suggest it. David Spector (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient citations

This article is lacking citations in many parts. There should be at least one citation for every paragraph. Most of the sections in this article does not fulfill that criteria. The Chemical reactions section has only one citation. Ethylene oxidation and Vinyl acetate monomer have zero. There are numerous other places where citation is needed, but not provided. These issues need to be fixed in order for the article to maintain its FA status.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Organic chemistry section

Aside from Fischer esterification, there is a distinct lack of organic chemistry within that subsection. Condensation and thermal decomposition reactions are not inherently organic type reactions. Moreover, what is meant by the OH group being the main site of reaction? Anyone who knows the reaction mechanisms for the described reactions, will know that the ketone group is the first to be attacked in most cases, the hydroxyl group is only involved in the final water elimination step. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

An article in the Readers' Digest (online version) suggests many health benefits

The article is linked here: [3] It is not credited and I would suggest that it is not written by anyone with knowledge of the properties of cider vinegar. It suggests that it is a panacea. The fact that these views are being spread suggests that the Wikipedia article should aim to support or deny these claims. I'm not a doctor really, so I can't do it. (Yes I know I could cite sources and use third-party information, I was being humorous) Is there someone who can? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen acetate

Why is hydrogen acetate (HC₂H₃O₂) not listed as a way to write acetic acid? Piguy101 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because chemists never use that term and we do not want to induce naive readers to adopt such a practice. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Photographic film?

What are we going to do with these multiple references to photographic film? That market has disappeared with the snows of yesteryear, and this article is now dated. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Acetic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.lsdiv.harvard.edu/pdf/evans_pKa_table.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/FoodAdditiveListings/ucm091048.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acetic acid. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207065434/http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/attiksyra_eng.htm to http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/attiksyra_eng.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acetic acid. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630134041/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/FullText.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/FullText.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dimer in crystals

"In solid acetic acid, the molecules form pairs (dimers), being connected by hydrogen bonds." The 1958 ref. talks about endles chains. Conflict? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Until someone digs up the Xray paper, I will fix this problem by making the statement more ambiguous. Not ideal but better than risking being wrong. Gas-phase probably is dimer. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The second simplest carboxylic acid

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead describes acetic acid as "the second simplest carboxylic acid (after formic acid)." Does carbonic acid not count as a carboxylic acid (even though it is listed here), a methyl group counts as more simple than a hydroxyl group (although according to PubChem, the complexity of carbonic acid is 26.3, while the complexity of formic acid is only 10.3), or is just a simple mistake that should be fixed? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And there is also Chloroformic acid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If Formaldehyde is "the simplest of a class of functional groups called aldehydes" then, in like manner, by substituting Hydrogen for the 'R', acetic acid would be the third in line.GaryD144 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Miscible is incorrectly used here.

Under fixed conditions, two substances are either miscible or not. It is a binary property: yes or no. There is NO SUCH THING as "partially miscible". The definition is: two substances which are soluble in one-another in ANY proportions are miscible. This is high school chemical terminology. This article uses the term incorrectly. Two substances which are not totally miscible have a range (or ranges) of solubility - not of miscibility. (It is possible, and not even that uncommon, for two materials to have a range of miscibility when considering temperature (or possibly pressure). But that is not how the term is being used here.)40.142.191.32 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I presume you are refering to the sentence "With higher alkanes (starting with octane), acetic acid is not completely miscible, and its miscibility declines with longer n-alkanes." The Encyclopædia Britannica defines partial miscibilty as essentially the same as ranges of solubility, so I don't think this is a valid complaint. Also, high-school chemistry is usually over-simplified. User:GKFX^talk 08:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree: Miscibility is indeed a binary property, the two liquids are either miscible or they are not. Otherwise virtually every pair of liquids are mutually "partially miscible", which is unhelpful and says nothing. My view is supported by IUPAC https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/MT07230. Britannica is a wonderful source, but IUPAC is more authoritative.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and have adjusted the article text to more accurately use the terminology. User:GKFX^talk 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR184.1005 should be referenced in this article.

Acetic acid as defined by the Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR184.1005. [4]DextroseIsCornSugar (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Diformaldehyde" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Diformaldehyde. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Diformaldehyde until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference between Acetic Acid and the acetyl group

The sentences " In biochemistry, the acetyl group, derived from acetic acid, is fundamental to all forms of life. When bound to coenzyme A, it is central to the metabolism of carbohydrates and fats." is superfluous or at least should mention that one of the most important components central to neuromuscular transmission is acetylcholine. On the other hand, there is already an article discussing the acetyl group to which this article could be linked.GaryD144 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Another use for Acetic Acid - Stress detection in molded ABS plastic

https://www.custom-plastic-mold.com/info/how-to-analyze-pc-and-abs-residual-stress-48471482.html

As an example above, glacial acetic acid may be used to detect stress in ABS and PC plastic moldings. Immerse the part briefly in the acvid, and cracks appear along lines of stress.

Might be a useful addition to the page.

Related Compounds

I was struck by the inclusion of this in the infobox. The *real* list of "related" compounds is enormous - and even limiting the list to economically or chemically important compounds would be 100's if not 1000's. I question its utility here. Why no mention of acetates of significance (the plastics, the medicines, the salts (some of which are mentioned). But if there is reason why it should remain, there's one compound missing: glycolic acid - i.e hydroxy acetic acid [sic].207.155.85.22 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We should keep the list to below about a dozen, as it would not be useful to be too large. I can think of more to add, but I can take pleasure in the listing of glycolic acid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Health Effects and Safety

Health Effects and Safety, paragraph 3, says "In 12 workers exposed for two or more years to acetic acid airborne average concentration of 51 ppm (estimated), produced symptoms of conjunctive irritation, upper respiratory tract irritation, and hyperkeratotic dermatitis." I believe this is missing a word or a few, because as it stands it doesn't make sense. I'd correct it but I'm not sure what it's supposed to be, as there is no attributed source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:4D02:D60:FCE0:8430:48DD:DBA7 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That should be coming from the Virginia Department of Health Division of Health Hazards Control reference. It makes sense enough, but those technical terms like hyperkeratotic dermatitis should be linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue in lede about make up of vinegar

Vinegar is at least 4% acetic acid by volume, making acetic acid the main component of vinegar apart from water and other trace elements.

This seems to suggest "trace elements" are more than 4% by volume each in vinegar, which then wouldn't merit the adjective "trace". If the sentence stopped after "water" it would be correct (to my understanding), if the mention of their being things other than water and acetic acid wants to remain the sentence needs to be changed to clarify they aren't a greater proportion than acetic acid which the current version suggests. I would also think are more likely most of the other things present will be compounds rather than elements.--81.141.254.213 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the confusion over trace elements in the leading paragraph. There are still a lot of issues with this article that I will try to find and address, such as the final paragraph that states that there is difficulty in igniting acetic acid at room temperature unless the temperature is raised... Of course that would be the case, does ethanol autoignite at room temperature? Reconrabbit (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Improve Organization and Story Telling

The organization of the article can be improved. The lead section does not provide an overview of what is there in the article and it seems that the information are all over the place. I think it would be better if the main theme of the article is mentioned in the introduction. The article would improve if it mentions why each section is there and what is the relation between different sections.

Narjes.nadimzadeh (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

FAR may be needed

Although kept in 2013, I notice that some unsourced paragraphs and sentences have snuck in. Additionally, much of the article, especially the medical uses section, is in short stubby paragraphs that could use prose improvement. I'm also concerned that the article may need updating since it was originally featured in 2007. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been making some changes over the past month to address some of the prose and uncited statements, as well as updating the numbers on production. Don't know if it addresses all of the concerns; processes may have changed over the years in acetic acid production. I haven't touched the lead paragraphs either. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Annual Production

I removed a statement that 1.5 t/a is produced by recycling. The reference does not say anything even slightly related. Besides, 1.5 tonnes out of 6.5 million tonnes seems almost irrelevant in the opening section. Perhaps 1.5 million tonnes per annum was intended, but that is still unsourced, and "t/a" does not mean "million tonnes per annum". So this material appears to be full of flaws, including "tons" instead of "tonnes", which I corrected. That is not simply a matter of spelling; it is a different unit. There is no such thing as a "metric ton". The remaining material is still unsourced, but I am not sure how to fix it. I saw nothing at the reference that says anything about production from methanol. Maybe it's true? Taquito1 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing basic information

Since most textbooks under graduate level are inappropriate to cite, and historical references shouldn't be used for technical information, what can be used for the following statements that are fairly basic but should still have a citation:

• The hydrogen centre in the carboxyl group (−COOH) in carboxylic acids such as acetic acid can separate from the molecule by ionization:
• Acetic acid is mildly corrosive to metals including iron, magnesium, and zinc, forming hydrogen gas and salts called acetates:
• Metal acetates can also be prepared from acetic acid and an appropriate base, as in the popular "baking soda + vinegar" reaction giving off sodium acetate: (maybe this J. Chem. Ed. article? [5])

Reconrabbit 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think textbooks and historical references need be excluded in general. These claims could well be verified by such sources. Often stuff like this is only in such sources because the content is expected to be learned before grad school. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Textbooks can be good for low-level thematic topics, but for chemicals and more complicated topics, one usually needs either grad level textbooks or monographs. Or, if you want the real low-down on apps: User:Smokefoot#Comment on refs. Many reviews on applications seem to be hype from academics.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

While I find that I agree with you generally, for the statements listed it hardly seems necessary. Discussions of the acidity of acetic acid and its ability to corrode metals do not seem like the stuff of graduate monographs. I would be more concerned with the unqualified use of the word "ionization" in the context of an introductory sentence on acidity. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit:, I disagree with both of the premises of your first sentence (and with others who take that similarly strong position) for these claims. The simple chemical facts of these simple chemicals have not changed in many decades and are not of such a sophisticated nature that requires an advanced source to support as general statements. As Johnjbarton says, if something is so simple, common knowlege, or fundamental that it would surely be covered at a low academic level, those sources are fine. If we want to discuss them in more detail, or corner-cases, obviously a more advanced source would be needed. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We take info from where we can get it with the goal of using reliable sources. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I made these claims when I was very new to editing (and I still am) and I wouldn't stand by them now after learning more about what is and isn't appropriate. I still get it wrong but I don't stand by the claim that I made in April... my bad. Reconrabbit 13:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Access to Ullman source?

The article says:

• About 75% of acetic acid made for use in the chemical industry is made by the carbonylation of methanol, explained below.

referencing:

• Cheung H, Tanke RS, Torrence GP. "Acetic Acid". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. doi:10.1002/14356007.a01_045.pub2. ISBN 978-3527306732.

If someone has access to this source, could they verify the claim? What I would really like to know is if the Monsanto and Cativa processes account for 75% (or what number it maybe) of world wide production. A claim along those lines was recently deleted from Iodine but without the source I don't know how to improve the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The Ullmann chapter on acetic acid, updated in 2013, suggests that technologies are still shifting from Monsanto toward Cativa. The article is very dense. Here is a quote from the final paragraph of the economics section:

"[in] 2002 the share [of Rh-based processes] had increased to 74% [total acetic acid capacity]. By 2012 ca. 90% of all acetic acid is manufactured by low-pressure methanol carbonylation technologies. These carbonylation processes utilize exclusively rhodium- and iridium-based catalyst systems and the majority, ca. 65%, of these processes are based on rhodium." So those numbers are 10 years old. But almost all acetic acid is made by carbonylation of methanol, which requires iodide to convert the methanol to methyl iodide, which is the entity that actually reacts with CO. Weird little factoids ensue. Like my inclination to say that rhodium/iridium chlorides are dominant halides for those metals - it may well be that the iodides are used on a greater scale. Another factoid, iodide is a cocatalyst. Various Ullmann articles suggest that eventually chem engineers will figure out how to oxidize ethane to acetic acid with acceptable selectivity. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)