Talk:Ethylene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Diagram

1Is the diagram in the page of C2H4 a Lewis dot diagram or a ball and stick diagram, like one of a model??? aaads erfsdfsefsefsefs

Title and name

Moved to ethylene because this is by far the more commonly used name. Google poll: ethylene 643,000; ethene 28,100. Shimmin 16:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Google is not always a good guide. IIRC, Ethene is the correct systematic name. I suggest we move it back -- Tarquin 16:59, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in WikiProject:Chemicals. What's the point of listing it under the IUPAC name when the IUPAC name is not the name that those who produce or use the compound call it? I see this as analogous to listing personal names like Jimmy Carter instead James Earl Carter. We want to maximize the likelihood that the page in the Wikipedia is the page people find when they look for information using a search engine or guess a page name in the address window, and we want to maximize the likelihood that people who refer to ethylene in other articles get the actual article rather than having to go through a redirect.

Ethylene is the name you'll find the compound listed under in a number of standard chemical references, including the Merck Index and the Kirk-Othmer Encylcopedia. It is the name it is sold under as a commercial product. The Google poll is not an inherently reliable method, but in this case it very much does reflect actual use. -- Shimmin 17:48, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

it was always called ethene in school. Could this be another case of US vs rest of the english-speaking world? -- Tarquin 20:35, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. I think it's a case of academia vs. industry. If it's just another molecule to fit into your nomenclature scheme, it's ethene. If you actually use it, it's ethylene.

For a Google-based demonstration of this (flawed, I know, but it's the one tool we all have access to...), do the phrase "ethene production". You'll get 145 hits, and the first few will have been written by biologists regarding its production by ripening fruit. Now do "ethylene production." You should get over 12,000 hits.

More dramatically, "ethene producer" gives 6 hits, compared to 448 for "ethylene producer." Ethylene is the name almost universally used in the chemical industry. And it's not just US thing. The Imperial Chemical Industries call it that, too.

The principle I'm trying to discover is this: obviously, water belongs where it is rather than at hydrogen oxide or hydroxic acid. It belongs there because the common name is overwhelmingly more commonly used than the systematic name. Now, how much more overwhelming should it be? acetylene vs. ethyne? formaldehyde vs. methanal? chloroform vs. trichloromethane? acetic acid vs. ethanoic acid? The more important a substance is, the more likely that it has a highly entrenched non-IUPAC name. Shimmin

Google will find it at Ethene or Etylene aslong as there is a redirect page. http://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Awikipedia.org+ethylene+redirected Mintguy 21:07, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Granted, but if you want to score high in PageRank, an article will almost certainly do better than a redirect. Shimmin

Ethene sounds better, and is the IUPAC recommented name for good reasons. But its nigh on impossible to fight convention. Grrr, convention... mastodon 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Perhaps it's because I'm young, or non-US, or learnt any chemistry I know at school, or even just predisposed to systematic naming—but it's ethene as far as I'm concerned. This issue is particularly annoying when you search for (e.g.) perchloroethene and get 'no page exists'. Who wants to go through putting in redircts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Ethene is more accurate. Who cares about Google search result? Chemical name follows IUPAC's convention not Google's. If you want to base the name on numbers, what about 500 million + of UK English people in the world versus 300 million of American English? Kboom 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in America, and we use Ethene, too. Its not about American English Vs UK English it's about Convention Vs Industery.

PS:Oddly MS Word (2003) likes ethylene and not ethene, and automaticly changes most -enes to -anes while you type, so beware Microsoft got lazy in biochem!--Hamster2.0 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How is ethene more accurate?

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#General rule for the criterion which should be applied to the name of this article:

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

That is the rule that we must abide by. This discussion should therefore only focus on which name fits that description best. It is irrelevant whether individual editors prefer ethylene or ethene.

Although Google tests are not exactly a gold standard, the ratio of hits for ethylene : ethene is 28:1. Such an enormous difference clearly favours ethylene in the above criterion. Anyone who disagrees should make their case at WP:CHEMISTRY, where I hope it will be swiftly dismissed as unfounded.

Ben 11:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of articles in WE are named with awkward IUPAC-ish titles and some have more colloquial names used in the real world (vs. school books). Redirects allow editors to correct the problem. If one feels so very passionate about the chemistry (vs being a bean counter), then contirbute CONTENT.--Smokefoot 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the rename. Ethene is the correct IUPAC name (see the comment I added at the end of the history section), is consistent with the titles of most other derivative chemical pages on WP, and the pro-move comments here seem to outnumber the anti- ones. - memodude 05:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also, everyone who has learned systematic naming first is going to immediately recognize ethene, not necessarily ethylene. Ethene probably generally has the most traction at the moment. - memodude 05:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page back. Your move was without consensus, and against Wikipedia naming guidelines. Ethylene is the most common name by far; ethene is mostly used at the basic level for teaching, presumably to avoid overwhelming the student with trivial names (despite the fact that few people in the real world use the systematic name). --Itub 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethylene is by far the most common term in industry, in academics, in government, and in popular use. The crude google method shows the preponderance of ethylene in common use. A google scholar search and a Chemical Abstracts result in a similar preponderance, showing that "ethylene" is preferred in academics. Governement organizations use ethylene almost exclusively (see International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre or MESH or EINECS). I can't find any MSDS that is titled ethene rather than ethylene, which shows that in industry "ethylene" is clearly preferred. The only argument in favor of "ethene" is that it is the systematic name. But there has never been any kind of agreement, rule, or tradition here at Wikipedia that chemical articles should be preferably titled by systematic name. The title should remain ethylene. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? What obscure field do you work in? I've been working as a chemical engineer since 1993, and except for the old codgers, the term "ethene" is far more common than "ethylene". The only real exception to that is in plastics - only recently have people started commonly using the terms polypropene and polyethene - but even in those fields they were more likely to use ethene and propene when speaking of the raw materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.252.95 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who designs Ethylene plants day in day out (chemical engineer, young, so don't know what the guy above me is on about) it'd be foolish to change it to Ethene, GCSE/A-Level aside you'll never use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.164.7 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As described above, at UK secondary schools (high schools) you are exclusively taught the IUPAC nomenclature, but at university the trivial names are at least as prevalent if not more so. There's a good case for ethylene. krebbe (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

so why is it still under ethylene? i wondered why wiki didnt have an article on something so commonplace as ethene. All high school students are taught ethene, and anyone googling for "ethylene producer" is clearly not interested in a Wiki article. 165.21.155.92 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it being named ethylene, much as I dislike the term myself. It is so much more widely used, and in some cases scientists who are not chemists will not know the term ethene. It's not just restricted to this compound either. Ethene IS the correct name though. As soon as people leave school they will quickly learn that the correct names they have been taught are hardly used anywhere. Besides, it redirects from ethene anyway, although I would like it made a bit more clear that ethene is the actual correct termination. ClamsonJ (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not quite true. There's no such thing as correct terminology. Correctness is just a point of view. However, nomeclature can be incorrect - a name and a structure may not match.

Ben (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the IUPAC naming system considered the correct form? ClamsonJ (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's just a systematic approach, which isn't entirely systematic any way (plenty of exceptions, such as acetic acid - this is the IUPAC name, despite the existence of the more systematic name ethanoic acid).

IUPAC rules attempt to standardise the naming of chemicals, but it's often ignored - most IUPAC names are too long and complicated to be useful.

Ben (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am curretley studying applied chemistry at collage and ethylene is a carbon carbon triple bond, i know this may be repeated but it has just been brought to my attention now, this is not the proper nomenclature of the molecule and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.99.229 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not right at all. Maybe you're thinking of acetylene (ethyne, H-C≡C-H, carbon-carbon triple bond). Ethylene is very definitely H₂C=CH₂.

Ben (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Propene; Butene. Now have a look at Caesium and Aluminium. They're all IUPAC names. Maybe, maybe this article should follow suit. Have a look in their respective talk pages for more info.--HawkFromHell (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's chemistry guidelines specifically mention that it is preferable to use common names over IUPAC names. But, in any case, if you wanted to use the IUPAC name on this article, it would say at ethylene because that is the preferred ("retained") name, not ethene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.33.188 (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a bit funny to have propene, butene, pentene and then ethylene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.19.235 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethane is written as Ethane so shouldn't Ethylene be written as Ethene, as the areas of Alkanes and Alkenes are both taught together at GCSE level, this may assists those trying to learn more about Alkenes/anes. People are saying that the majority of the English speaking world call it Ethylene but I live in England and the first time I'd read this name was about ten minutes ago when I searched for Ethene.Joeb20122012 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not a chemist, but I can say that going by google and any data derived by or related to that company for determining the naming of a compound is senseless. As chemists you must rely on your own theory and your own data; you should know this!

Boiling point/melting point

some where i read that boiling point of ethene is -83.4 and melting point is -81. i want to know that thise is righ

No, this is wrong. The correct values are in the the article, found in the box on the right - mastodon 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Production

It would be helpful to be more clear in this section what the feedstocks are for Ethylene production, rather than just "hydrocarbons". Perhaps a mention of the Fischer-Tropsch process might be helpful as well. --Benjamindees 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally feedstocks are Ethane/Propane, for gas cracking plants (making a blend of Ethylene and Propylene, C2:C3 ratio can vary from .6 downwards) or NGL for liquid cracking plants. In short, pretty much most things, you'll just be adjusting the severity of cracking, residence time, recycle loops etc. in order to get the right amount of product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.164.7 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

plant hormone

Where exactly is ethylene synthesised? this section is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.165.145 (talk) 06:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC) Also, it would help if the section was more detailed, (result of perception and signal transduction?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.165.145 (talk) 06:39, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can anybody introduce this reference for the Neljubov 1901 citation: Neljubow D (1901) Über die horizontale Nutation der Stengel von Pisum sativum und einiger anderer Pflanzen. Beih Bot Zentralbibl 10:128-139 I don't know how to put it in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.182.29 (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add some info to the perception section. As pointed out above, the info on perception and signal transduction could be more detailed and this is an area of science that I have background in.Spermologos (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Explanation and Details of "Speculative" Remarks

Hi. I initiated the "Location" and the "Effects" sections. They are derived from 2 1/2 years of library study of all the plant hormones in the mid 1980's! Keep this in mind when looking over the entries. Unfortunately I lost some of my notes and I did some specualtion about what the plant is trying to do when it makes a hormone. In the original form of the article, I mixed them up and failed to indicate what was speculative and what was not.

I will try to show below what I remember as being speculations on my part and what is solidly referenced. Please keep in mind that others appear to have added to my list, and some of my speculation could have been right, so some references may actually exist. My aim for revealing this, is in part embaressment that my entries continue to exist alongside other authoritative articles in Wikipedia and this is not entirely appropriate for an Encyclopedia. Mea culpa. Anyway my speculative article is here: http://www.planthormones.info/.

Location, Characteristics and Occasions for Synthesis Induction

• Directly induced by high levels of auxin - solidly referenced (at least high auxin induces Ethylene but perhaps in an indirect way as I speculate in my theory pages that Auxin massivley draws nutrients to itself starving nearby cells of minerals and water thereby leading to Ethylene production - see my article http://www.planthormones.info/).
• Found in germinating seeds - solidly referenced.
• Induced by root flooding - solidly referenced.
• Induced by drought - solidly referenced.
• Synthesized in nodes of stems - solidly referenced.
• Synthesized in tissues of ripening fruits - solidly referenced.
• Synthesized in response to shoot environmental, pest, or disease stress - solidly referenced.
• Synthesized in senescent leaves and flowers - solidly referenced.
• Rapidly diffuses - solidly referenced.
• Inhibiting effects of ethylene on shoot growth (more specifically on stem elongation) reduced in the presence of light. Also ethylene levels are decreased by light - solidly referenced? Please check.
• The above may be because light induces auxin synthesis and moderate auxin levels inhibit ethylene - speculative.
• Released in mature (and to a lesser extent immature cells) cells when they do not have enough minerals and water to support both themselves and any dependent cells - speculative.

Effects

• Stimulates leaf and flower senescence - solidly referenced.
• Induces leaf abscission mainly in older leaves - solidly referenced although the idea that older leaves go first is speculative perhaps, please be careful.
• Induces seed germination - solidly referenced.
• Induces root hair growth – this increases the efficiency of water and mineral absorption - I think this is solidly referenced, but please check out.
• Stimulates epinasty – leaf petiole grows out, leaf hangs down and curls into itself - solidly referenced. By the way, a new speculation of mine is that Epinasty allows the plant to act like a handled water pump and pump out flooded roots. The leaf in the Epinastic position would be the handle and maybe special valves would be induced by Ethylene in the Xylem and grow under flooding conditions.
• Stimulates fruit ripening - solidly referenced.
• Induces the growth of adventitious roots during flooding - solidly referenced.
• Usually inhibits growth - although perhaps just shoot growth - I think growth inhibition is solidly referenced but be a little careful. The shoot growth part is speculative.
• Affects neighboring individuals - solidly referenced (bad apple spoils the bunch).
• Disease/wounding resistance - sound right, I remember reading about this. According to my idea ethylene, and gibberellin (or brassinosteroid) make a plant stronger but smaller.
• Triple response when applied to seedlings – root and shoot growth inhibition and pronounced hypocotyl hook bending - solidly referenced. Does not fit my specualtive theory, so my theory needs work.
• Inhibits stem swelling ? - Contradictory to the finding below – contradictory refereces.
• Stimulates cell broadening (and lateral root growth) - Former is solidly referenced, the latter may be speculative.
• Interference with auxin transport (with high auxin concentrations) - may be speculative, please research.
• Directly or indirectly induces auxin at high levels - speculative.
• Inhibits the rate of metabolism of cells in the shoot so as to redirect resources to the root - speculative.
• Is a general indicator of poor root health. Strategy of senescent leaves may to funnel more resources to the root - speculative.
• May be more active at night when root and mineral acquisition are, on average, lower - speculative.
• Just as a role of auxin may be to increase minerals and water by shoot growth, ethylene may do this by shoot senescence. My suggestion is that Cytokinin and auxin hormones are released when conditions are favorable for growth, for example during the day. Ethylene and gibberellin (or brassinosteroid) may be released when the plant must either cut back in size, or survive on stored resources, for example during the night - speculative.
• Induces flowering in pineapples - solidly referenced I'm guessing, but I think it was me who made this entry
• In food production, some plants are considered ethylene producers, while others are considered ethylene sensitive. Entry not made by me, interesting though.--socrtwo 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethylene is important, so we should to upgrade this article

Ethylene is an extremely important chemical, and we should show this by upgrading this report. Before I get cranked up, I welcome suggestions and directions. My initial concerns upon looking at this thing:

• needs more emphasis on basic chemistry - where it comes from and what its good for. Part of the problem is that ethylene is so important, even organic texts tend not to discuss it!
• Maybe a MO scheme.
• more in-line references guiding readers to sources
• two screenfuls of info on "effects on humans" (reference-less) seems excessive and highly anecdotal, but what do we do? One approach, chop it way down and encourage readers to consult the MSDS.
• 1.5 screenfuls of bullets listing the effects and factoids associated with ethylene as a hormone. No references.

Again, suggestions are welcome.--Smokefoot 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree on the importance - and the difficulty in digging-up data from most texts. Even many polymer chem books just assume that you know all about this most critical of feedstocks. I'll work on documenting the Ethylene as a growth facter/hormone section; and, yes, the majority of the human effects section can be trimmed, IMHO. -- MarcoTolo 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i found a popular culture reference. In the popular HUSH batman series poison ivy used "ethylene" to control superman and others. It was being produced by lexcorp. This isn't something you normally see in a chemistry page but i feel it is relevant none the less. There may even be more refernces out there (link) http://www.comicvine.com/hush/39-40875/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.156.95 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethylene Muscle Enhancement

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/ethylene.html#table02

Should we add something in the article concerning this?

Move from article

Comment by 66.41.108.124 removed from article:

If some editors would be willing to create a section specifically detailing different methods used in testing for ethylene such as gas chromatography, biological assays, etc..., preferably fairly accurate methods along with links to "how to" sites it would be much appreciated.

--Ed (Edgar181) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Author Information

Does anyone know who specifically wrote this article? I need specific names for referencing. Teacher won't let us cite "Wikipedia" as a reference. (It stinks) If anyone has any information, please get it to me. Thank you all very much. The Spotted Swans 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the info I need. Thanks anyway. Ben Swanson 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Effects on humans

This section is confusing and unreferenced. Some things that would help:

• Finding references for the physiological effects claimed.
• When giving a percentage of exposure, be specific about whether this is by volume or weight, and whether this is in air or a pure ethylene-oxygen mixture.
• When describing what the % availability of oxygen is, be specific about whether this scale considers normal air to make oxygen 100% available, or 20.9% available (the normal atmospheric concentration).
• When giving a percentage exposure, the best practice would be to give relative percentages of ethylene, oxygen and other gases (e.g. 50% ethylene, 10% oxygen, 40% other).

I removed the following claim because it seems to contradict the detailed assertions of the rest of the section:

In air, ethylene acts primarily as an asphyxiant. Concentrations of ethylene required to produce any marked physiological effect will reduce the oxygen content to such a low level that life cannot be supported.

I removed the following claim because the phrase "order of systemic toxicity" is not explained, and at certain concentrations, the gas can reportedly be fatal:

Ethylene has a very low order of systemic toxicity.

-- Beland 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought ethylene is nontoxic. It was used as an anesthetic at a concentration of 85% with 15% oxygen. source:http://www.catalyticgenerators.com/whatisethylene.html Also when it says, "Death occurs quickly when the oxygen content falls to 8% or less." and “at about 94% in oxygen, ethylene is acutely fatal”. You may want to look at this chart I found at http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/35b1bc31-7c0e-455b-a723-8255ff28ddba/0/safetygram17.pdf

Oxygen Content of Air Signs and Symptoms of Persons at Rest

15%–19.5% Decreased ability to work strenuously. May impair coordination and may induce symptoms in persons with coronary, pulmonary, or circulatory problems.
12%–15% Respiration deeper, increased pulse rate, and impaired coordination, perception, and judgment.
10%–12% Further increase in rate and depth of respiration, further increase in pulse rate, performance failure, giddiness, poor judgment, and blue lips.
8%–10% Mental failure, nausea, vomiting, fainting, unconsciousness, ashen face, blue lips.
6%–8% 8 minutes, may be fatal in 50-100% of exposures; 6 minutes, may be fatal in 25-50% of exposures; 4-5 minutes, recovery with treatment.
4%–6% Coma in 40 seconds, convulsions, respiration ceases, death.

It also says "...No one must work in or enter atmospheres containing less than 19.5% oxygen, unless equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus(SCBA) or a breathing air-supplied face mask. This is also true for rescue personnel who can be overcome by the same oxygen deficient atmosphere as the initial victim..."

So anyway, what are we measuring? Lack of oxygen or ethylene gas?--Hamster2.0 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a gold mine on data for the toxicity of ethylene!!!

http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/74851.pdf has a study on the effects of ethylene on humans and rats, plants and more! ex.

The acute toxicity of inhaled ethylene is low, but very high concentrations may cause asphyxia due to oxygen displacement. The lethal concentration for mice in air is estimated to be 950,000 ppm (1093 g/m3). When male rats were exposed to 10, 25 or 57 .103 ppm (11.5, 28.8 or 65.6 g/m3) for 4 hours, all groups showed increased serum pyruvate and liver weight.

--Hamster2.0 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Should any addition be made for the historical use of Ethylene? Such as the Oracle at Delphi inhaling it's vapors to issue prophecies? --74.140.139.22 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Diagram request

{{reqdiagram}} A diagram would help to explain the production process. -- Beland 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template requesting a diagram as I think it is now included. Please reinstate it if you disagree. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages of using Ethylene for Ripening Fruits.

I think there should be a section for the advantages and disadvantages of using ethylene for ripening fruits. There are numerous advantages for using ethylene such as picking them while they are still green, allowing them to be sent where they need to be without spoiling or bruising, but are there any disadvantages?--97.96.173.128 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also a (very typical) issue with the historical remarks regarding ripening methods used by the ancient Egyptians. Apparently the Egyptians cut fruit to hasten ripening which in turn produces Ethylene. This is a ridiculous, even laughably stupid, anachronistic application of modern science to ancient societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumgaertner (talk • contribs) 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

New Diagram

I've created a map of the methionine cylce for better representation of plant ethylene biosynthesis. If there are any mistakes, doubts or questions concerning the map, let me know.--Crenim (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

6 ethylene receptors in tomato?

Tomato genome has not been fully sequenced. We do not know how many ethylene receptors are there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.20.37 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of ethylene glycols in "soft drinks, food packaging and textiles" ?!?

I always thought that ethylene glycol was a toxin used in automotive antifreeze. This article says, "It is also used to manufacture ethylene glycols, which are in turn used in soft drinks and food packaging and textiles". Is that correct?

I think it was intended to mean it is used in the packaging for soft drinks and food. I have reworded the sentence accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-ane, -ene, -yne, -one, -une...

OK, so -ane is alkane, -ene is alkene, -yne is alkyne, -one is valylene and I don't know what -une is right? ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 04:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Safety section

I replaced a long safety section that listed symptoms from possible ethylene intoxication. The material seemed generic to any volatile organic compound and was probably copied or paraphrased from an MSDS. My industrial source indicates that ethylene is largely non-toxic, which is consistent with its use as an anesthetic. It affects plants more than humans. But I wanted readers to know that nothing sneaky is going on. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Newer source regarding production

I found a more recent source to be used to update this article. Seems to have good, current info. Stillwaterising (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• True, Warren R., "Global ethylene capacity continues advance in 2011", Oil and Gas Journal, retrieved 2012-09-29

Do a Google search for referral link which is needed for free access. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

properties

it appears that the units of solubility are off by an order of magnitude and the values are also incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.201.78 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

NFPA 704 classification

Is the current classification correct? A toxicity of 3 seems very high for a simple asphyxiant. In the Airgas MSDS (http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/001022.pdf) the triangle used in this article refers to _liquid_ ethene, while gaseous ethene has lower toxicity and instability values. Regmolar (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)