Talk:Diethyl ether/Archive 1

Archive 1

Curious George

Does curious george really belong in the section about precautions? That could be moved to the part about recreational use, it would be more fitting there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desomnambulist (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Curious George

nt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.29.106 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Curious George image in this article is Wikipedia at its most hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.67.124 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis and Reactions

Shouldn't there be a section on the synthesis and chemical reactions of all chemical substances? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.29.59 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Triple Point

Anyone know the triple point of diethyl ether or perhaps have access to its phase diagram? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Latin

A quick google search on the original latin name has led me to believe it might be more correct as "oleum vitrioli dulce" rather than "oleum dulcis vitrioli" in the article. Perhaps they are equivalent? Dolphin Cheese (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I know how to pronounce ether, but how do you pronounce Diethyl? Is it DY-thill or dy-EE-thill?--Labine50 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "Di"-"ethyl". Think Princess "Di" and "Ethyl" Mertz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.113.98.3 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Therapeutic index

In the anaesthetics section, it says:

Ether is still the preferred anesthetic in some developing nations due to its high therapeutic index (~1.5-2.2) [7] and low price.

However a therapeutic index of 1.5 to 2.2 is definitely not high, in fact a TI under 3 is considered a dangerous drug that requires constant monitoring, while one as low as 1.5 would probably be considered too dangerous to use at all. High, safe TIs are on the order of a hundred or more. (The reason for this is simple: the TI is the ratio of the means of two statistical distributions, TD₅₀ (toxic dose harmful to 50% of population) to ED₅₀ (therapeutic dose effective in 50% of population.) Because these are distributions, some people will require a therapeutic dose substantially higher than ED₅₀, and some people will be harmed by a dose much lower than TD₅₀. The closer together these doses are, the less margin there is between these figures, and the more patients will be harmed, even if expert guidance means that patient's ED is only just reached. The proportion of people harmed will also depend on the standard deviation of these distributions, which is not known here; but in practice, s.d.s for drug doses are usually of the same order as the mean. That means that with a TI as low as 1.5, we can expect multiple tens of percents of patients to be harmed by the drug, even if expertly administered.)

I don't know what the true TI of ether is, because the given reference at http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/1/24.pdf is available to subscribers only, but there is obviously something wrong the current version. If the TI of ether really is as low as 1.5, then ether anaesthesia is extremely dangerous and it can only be considered "safe" relative to some even more insanely dangerous material. If ether really is considered "safe", then its TI must be much higher than 2.2, and this entry is in error. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From the source: "Surgical anesthesia occurred with a blood ether concentration of from 73 to 95 mgm. per cent; stoppage of respiration with a concentration of from 166 to 183 mgm." This experiment was done on dogs. They carefully controlled the concentration used during the experiment. Maybe the TI is advantageous compared to other anaesthetics like chloroform? John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a practicing, board-certified anesthesiologist in the US. Ether is a very safe anesthetic via open drop mask administration because its first adverse effect is to depress respiration. If someone overdoses on inhaled open-mask ether, they will begin by decreasing their respiratory depth and thus decreasing the quantity of ether inhaled. The natural fate of ether is to be redistributed to fat, which will eventually decrease the concentration sufficiently for the patient to begin breathing normally again. Furthermore, if the patient breathes inadequately, it is easy to administer a few breaths with a mask and a self-filling bag (e.g., Ambu bag). Chloroform, by contrast, is a powerful cardiac depressant and, if overdosed, will produce severe hypotension - resulting in inadequate blood flow to the body. This is particularly problematic for a volatile anesthetic because the drug can only be exhaled if there is good cardiac output. (Otherwise, the breaths will be clearing only the blood in the lungs of the drug, while doing nothing to reduce the quantity in the rest of the body.) Having said all that, volatile anesthetics are not "safe" drugs. That's why someone sits with the patient and monitors them throughout the anesthetic. Doubling the dose of gas will produce significant hypotension even with modern agents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.194.217 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor Synthesis Error

The section on synthesis should have sulfuric (or other strong acid) dissociating into either hydronium (H₃O⁺) or directly to alkonium (ROH₂⁺) ions. The naked proton does not exist in solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.206.79 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is a typical shorthand way of writing such equations (using H⁺ rather than H₃O⁺), it is probably better to write it out explicitly, so I have done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tick Removal

I removed the use as a tick removal aid. It was at least a useless advice, maybe even a dangerous one.
Sources: http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/ento/TickEduc/Tickremoval.pdf , http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020815/643.html , http://www.bada-uk.org/defence/removal/indextickremoval.php , etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.146.110 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• None of the links you provided even mentioned the worth ether in them, for what that is worth. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Effects of prolonged breathing of ether fumes?

A family I know ha a bottle of ether stored in a closet. The ether evaporated over several months, and everybody felt sleepy while at home. They got rid of the ether bottle but wonder if there are long term effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.92.250 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not very toxic aside from the immediate effects, which require considerably more concentration than they were likely exposed to. At low doses it's more of a euphoriant than an anesthetic. Dualus (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Major clean up

I moved "metabolism" section to right below medical use where it is of relevance. I removed comments such as "low boiling point" as it is a shaky claim seeing that its quite subjective and I felt it wasn't necessary anyways since the boiling point is given in the data table. Removed links to external links that was peddling for petitions as well as a seemingly unrelated commercial site. The article still needs a lot of grammar fix. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Safety Section Needs Clarification

The following sentence in the Safety section isn't as clear (or perhaps accurate) as perhaps it could/should be:

"A common practice in chemical labs is to use steam (thus limiting the temperature to 100 °C (212 °F) when ether must be heated or distilled)."

Since water begins to turn into steam at 100 °C, and can increase literally to thousands of °C in steam form (which is sometimes used to sterilize steel medical equipment for that reason), the rationale given here is factually incorrect, if only by way of omission. A more apt explanation might be that steam inhibits flame by (A) occupying space where oxygen would otherwise exist in greater abundance (which applies more to liquid water than steam, but is still noteworthy in its gaseous form); (B) forming temporary hydrogen bonds with combustible materials, preventing them from oxidizing (combusting); and (C) "stealing" heat from the fuel-oxygen system wherein combustion may occur--but this only applies if the water/steam is at a temperature less than the ignition temperature of the fuel.

I suspect that the section means to imply the latter ("C"), since normal processes of boiling water cause it to leave the heating apparatus at almost exactly 100 °C (i.e. as soon as it evaporates); but since not everybody understands either that steam has no real "maximum temperature" (that is, without becoming a plasma fireball, I suspect), nor that not all methods of heating produce steam at almost exactly 100 °C, I recommend altering this section to be more clear in at least some respects. (Perhaps it takes a "more-knowledgeable-than-average-about-chemistry" person to be confused by the above wording, but I'm sure that somebody else will also find it odd, so long as they realize that steam can be more than 100 °C.)

If everyone else is OK with such an alteration of wording--without going into exhaustive/excessive detail, as above--I'd be willing to write the correction, assuming nobody else really wants to do so.

Also, I recommend using brackets, "[ ]" for inner parentheticals, as recursive parenthesis are usually difficult to read. Dmutters (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Recreational Use

The paragraph on recreational use has the following passage: "When breathed in very high concentrations of 15-20% in air, such as the vapor from a soaked rag, diethyl ether can suppress spontaneous breathing with potentially lethal consequences. [citation needed]"

It was my understanding that respiratory depression from ether, lethal or not, only occurs at points well past that of a standard anesthetic state, in which the individual has already lost motor control and consciousness entirely. An individual would not be able to apply this dosage to themselves. John Snow talks about only observing this in what he calls the "5th stage of etherization," which had only been induced in animals due to the extremely high doses required to do so.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowetherbook_a4.htm

--216.255.38.252 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

solubility mystery question

"Laboratory uses

Diethyl ether is a common laboratory solvent. It has limited solubility in water (6.05 g/100 mL at 25 °C.) [7] and dissolves 1.5 g/100 mL water at 25 °C." Perhaps I don't understand, but, looking up the solubility in water only to find two different figures makes me wonder what is going on. both referenced. I would go with the Merk index but would have to check it myself making this seem an unreliable source. first, 6.05g/100 h20 solubility is not limited, to me that's a fair amount. then 1.5 g/100 ml seems more 'limited' to me. but who to trust? must I set up my own experiments and attempt to re-verify work that has already been done? I hope not. It is possible that this is either wrong, I don't understand it, is not clear enough, or is confusing be design (a scary thought). Could anyone clear up this solubility mystery for me? Thank you for your time and hard work otherwise. fine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.208.186 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism of Action?

How is there literally no information on the neurological actions of ether? No explanation for how it induces it's effects is given. LiamSP (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ether Drinking

Perhaps the section on recreational use should contain information on "ether drinking". [1] Haligonian1 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

it's strange that this article says that ether "supplanted" chloroform, but the wiki article on anesthesia says that ether use was largely replaced by choloroform. which article is correct? chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.62.49 (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)