Talk:Hydrogen peroxide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hydrogen Peroxide concentration?

From the "Decomposition" section there is this paragraph:

A common concentration for hydrogen peroxide is "20 volume", which means that when 1 volume of hydrogen peroxide is decomposed, it produces 20 volumes of oxygen. A 20 "volume" concentration of hydrogen peroxide is equivalent to 1.667 mol/dm3 (Molar solution) or about 6%.

How is the 6% derived? In addition, the 6% would mean 6% by volume of H2O2 divided by volume of solution right?

Here what I worked out:

Assuming 1 liter (1dm3) of H2O2 solution, number of mol of oxygen = (20/24) From the decomposition equation, there will be 2x as many mol of H2O2. Thus there will be 40/24 mol of H2O2. 40/24= 1.667 (4 s.f.)

Also, in calculating the %: (still assuming 1 liter of H2O2 solution)

Using 1.667mol: mass of H2O2: 1.667*34 = 56.678g Using density to find volume of H2O2: 56.678/1.463 = 38.7409 cm3 (5sf) Thus concentration by % would be 38.7409/1000 x 100% = 3.87409%

The value is totally off from 6%. So, what is it that I am doing wrong here? In addition, I am also trying to calculate the the concentration of 100% (ie. pure) H2O2 in mol/dm3.

From "Domestic Uses" Section, The strength of a solution may be described as a percentage or volume, where 1% hydrogen peroxide releases 3.3 volumes of oxygen during decomposition. Thus, a 3% solution is equivalent to 10 volume and a 6% solution to 20 volume, etc.

Thus 100% H2O2 is 330 volume. Using the same method above: number of mol of oxygen = (330/24) From the decomposition equation, there will be 2x as many mol of H2O2. Thus there will be 660/24 mol of H2O2. 660/24 = 27.5 mol/dm3

However, using the density to calculate: density of H2O2 in dm3 = 1.463*1000 = 1463g/dm3 number of mol = 1463/34 = 43.029mol/dm3 (5 s.f.)

I have 2 different values, 27.5mol/dm3 and 43.029mol/dm3. What's wrong?

Here's what your calculation should be:

You got the molecular weight of H2O2 wrong; it's approximately 34, not 24.

• 6% solution means 60 grams of H2O2 in 1 litre of water (see Percentage solution).
• 60 grams of H2O2 = 60/34 (or 1.76) moles.
• When this decomposes to water and oxygen, you get 60/34 moles of O atoms, but as a gas, this exists as O2. So you only get half the moles of O2 compared to O (30/34, or 0.88 moles).
• When you multiply 0.88 moles by the molar volume at 273K (22.4L) you get 19.8L, or very nearly 20 times the volume you started with. So 6% solution does approximate to 20 volume.

Wikiwayman (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clear this up

Erm...no, I don't think it's because I took the hydrogen peroxide molecular mass as 24 instead of 34. I'm calculating from using the number of volumes of oxygen to get the concentration. The 24 come from my perodic table that says 1 mol of any gas is 24dm3 at room temperature and pressure, and I took that. Apparently, we should be using STP instead (22.4dm3 per mol).

So, if I am correct, here are the mistakes that I made:

• I used Room temperature and pressure instead of STP (mean 24dm3/mol instead of 22.4dm3/mol)
• I used vol/vol % instead of using wt/vol %.
• I took 20 volume to be completely accurate when it should actually be 19.8 volume.

Anyway, while this is not so relevant here; As wt/vol % (in g/cm3) is being used, does this mean that pure hydrogen peroxide actually has a concentration of 146.3% as the density of pure hydrogen peroxide is 1.463 g/cm3?

Decomposition

at a certain concentration hydrogen peroxide self combusts...what is that density?

---

I have (very carefully) handled 99% pure hydrogen peroxide (frozen, using tongs, dropped into a container and let it melt up to room temperature). If it does self combust, the concentration would be higher than 99% and/or at higher than room temperature.

---

Hydrogen peroxide will always tend to decompose on its own, depending on its concentration, the temperature, impurities, and what kind of container it's stored in. That's why HTP has to be stored in a vented container (see the updates to the article). There is no concentration at which it will spontaneously decompose very rapidly at room temperature. However, at higher temperatures it can reach a point where you can get runaway decomposition. 120F (49C) is generally considered the highest "safe" temperature at which to work with HTP. Higher temperatures can be maintained as long as something is removing heat from the peroxide to prevent it from getting any hotter due to its own decomposition.

Incidentally, stainless steel is *not* an appropriate container in which to store peroxide. Both iron and chromium, which stainless steel contains, are incompatible with peroxide. I edited the page to take out the reference to stainless steel.

---

NEED HELP-------------------------

Can anyone tells me the effect of pH on H2O2 decomposition in water. what is the rate constants of H2O2 self decomposition at various pH values????

Stabilizers

It would be useful if some knowledgeable person could add a section on the stabilizers typically present in commercial hydrogen peroxide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Therapeutic use

--- However accidental consumption of 35% H2O2 will cause death. However 0.5% is considered safe. Many homemade "cures" are usually with the addition of Colloidal Silver and Colloidal Copper (usually at 5 parts per million, which is manufactured from colloidal copper/silver maker. Since both silver and especially copper has marked viricidal action. Addition of vinegar (5% solution of acetic acid) to the batch at 10%-15% concentration plus green tea will create a very powerful oxidizing agent against the AIDS virus, but must be taken continuously at 3-6 hours interval for 3 months with the amount to take be about 3 tablespoons.

Near 100% cure is reported. Marked recovery has been observed within 24 hours. It should be noted that peracetic acid (when H2O2 and acetic acid is combined) along with colloidal copper and silver, this is the single most powerful sanitizing agents against virus (anti-AIDS) known to man, but yet it is safe enough to drink. Many cats owners (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus - cat's equivalent to Human AIDS)have reported a complete cure using the formula within a month. Iraqi scientists have determined the formula using this cocktail has a purported 1000 fold increase against virus as compared to using just only H2O2. "The viricidal effect is better than the use of olive leaf extract in combination with grapefruit seed extract, which is already a superior methods against both AIDS and cancer, but information is withheld by the Western media with possible control of such use to be regulated worldwide in the near future."

These two paragraphs seem a bit strange. I have a few questions:

• Is H2O2 therapy administered by hospital doctors or by alternative therapists?
• Who says 0.5% is safe?
• Who come up with the dosage 3 tablespoons, every 3-6 hours for thee months?
• Who reported near 100% cure? This statement in particular makes me think this is a questionable therepy?
• Cat owners can say what they like, what about vet's do any vets report success?
• Where did the last sentance in quotes actually come from?
• Has the therapy had proper clinical trials and what were the results.

That's all the q2uestions I have for the time being. Theresa knott 13:26 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

However 0.5% is considered safe. Some homemade "cures" include the addition of colloidal silver and colloidal copper (usually at 5 parts per million. Consumption of colloidal silver can cause permanent greying of the skin (argyria). Many people use 35% hydrogen peroxide and do NOT use colloidal silver or copper. Again it must be warned that accidental consumption of peroxide at the full 35% concentration being marketed has caused deaths and serious injuries, usually to children. "This concentration is not approved by FDA for any therapeutic purpose," US FDA Commissioner Frank E. Young, M.D., Ph.D., said. "Indeed, no one has come forward with any evidence this substance taken internally has any medical value. Buyers are being cheated and subjected to significant risks and family members are being injured." This statement indicates that Mr. Young either has not investigated the healing use of hydrogen peroxide, or that his standard of "evidence" excludes the recounting of personal experience. There are several books with plenty of personal accounts of great value. One is "Oxygen Healing Therapies" by Nathanial Altman. Also, hydrogen peroxide is applied for healing in various means, with ingestion being just one possible method.

Somebody's been messing with the NPOV-ness of this article, most specifically starting at the "This statement indicates that Mr. Young..." sentence. It is the case that anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid.

I'm also concerned about .5% hydrogen peroxide injestion being listed as safe.

There's probably a way that you can edit this to allow the quackery usage to be listed while making it clear that folks do consider this quackery *and* dangerous. I'd just kill it, but NPOV NPOV. ;)

I'd edit it, but I kinda walked by and noticed it and didn't want to step on anybody's toes.

-- User:Wirehead

Well I'm not so worried about stepping on toes. I've just deleted the entire last parapgraph. NPOV does not mean we should let any old quackery on a page, especially when it is dangerous. The text I've deleted follows

"Accidental consumption of 35% H2O2 will cause death. However 0.5% is considered safe. Some homemade "cures" include the addition of colloidal silver and colloidal copper (usually at 5 parts per million. Consumption of colloidal silver can cause permanent greying of the skin (argyria). Many people use 35% hydrogen peroxide and do NOT use colloidal silver or copper. Again it must be warned that accidental consumption of peroxide at the full 35% concentration being marketed has caused deaths and serious injuries, usually to children. "This concentration is not approved by FDA for any therapeutic purpose," US FDA Commissioner Frank E. Young, M.D., Ph.D., said. "Indeed, no one has come forward with any evidence this substance taken internally has any medical value. Buyers are being cheated and subjected to significant risks and family members are being injured." This statement indicates that Mr. Young either has not investigated the healing use of hydrogen peroxide, or that his standard of "evidence" excludes the recounting of personal experience. There are several books with plenty of personal accounts of great value. One is "Oxygen Healing Therapies" by Nathanial Altman. Also, hydrogen peroxide is applied for healing in various means, with ingestion being just one possible method."

• Unless a reputable body ( such as the FDA) consideres a conc safe, we shouldn't say it is.
• Standars of evidence should exclude the recounting of personal experiences. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Proper scientific standards of evidence should always apply to our articles, but in the case of medical articles the standarsa should be as strict as possible. We sghould not give an impression that potentially harmful "snake oil" type treatments are accpetable. theresa knott 09:58, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious how the FDA was determined to be a reputable source. The reccommended daily allowance of vitamin C is basically the bare minimum needed to fend off scurvy. Hardly the source I would trust with information pertaining to my health. I would tend to be more trusting of a person who tried something and had it work than rely on an organization hell bent on keeping valuable medical information out of the public's hands. I am fascinated by some of the above info which has been removed from the main article, and will be doing independant study to see what more is out there regarding these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If FDA isn't reputable, then we're all doomed. The FDA is a government agency, and only survives as a government agency because it does the job it was created to do, and does it well. I would personally trust professional scientists (aka the FDA) far more than rumors and 'experts' with no credentials. By the way, who say's the FDA is "an organization hell bent on keeping valuable medical information out of the public's hands"? I would say a citation's needed! Sintau.tayua (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

wounds and bubbles

The article states that Hydrogen Peroxide is used to clean wounds. Why is this? I seem to recall hearing that it wasn't all that effective. And h2o2 is also well known for the bubbles that occur as a chemical reaction, but I didn't see what this chemical reaction was.

A quick search turned up this page: http://www.a2c2.com/articles/lifejan02.asp?pid=328&articleText=lifejan02

It states: "Hydrogen peroxide is relatively inexpensive, leaves no residue, and is effective in disinfecting open wounds. The reactivity of hydrogen peroxide is easily seen in the foaming that occurs when it is applied to an open wound. The foaming occurs because the hydrogen peroxide dissociates into water and oxygen in the presence of enzymes found in open wounds. However, hydrogen peroxide is known to be relatively slow in disinfecting. At ambient temperatures and pressure, 20 minutes of contact is recommended to disinfect a wound."

Could someone with understanding address these in the article? Redjar 19:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I would also like more information on this feature of hydrogen peroxide within the actual article. Most people know of Hydrogen Peroxide either as a bleach or that stuff their parents put on their knee when it got scuffed and it foamed up. I would add something to the article but I'm not 100% on the exact mechanism of disinfectant in the reaction (I assume that the reaction creates free oxygens that remove contaminants and destroys proteins/bacteria, leaving only water?). It would be nice if kids (and geeky but ignorent adults like me) could come to the site and find out how that foam actually disinfects a wound.

Rhettoric 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite and propellant use

Yesterday I uploaded a major rewrite of the main article, as part of the WP:Chem project. I felt that the article focussed too much on very specific uses, while the general properties and uses which should be in an encyclopedia article were missing. The only major deletion was a section which might have been called "How to make rocket fuel at home." Having personally lost a colleague in a massive hydrogen peroxide explosion (fortunately I arrived at the burning chemical plant a little after the explosion), I don't like to see Wikipedia encouraging amateurs to play with something that is a very dangerous chemical. I left in the bare facts, with the appropriate warnings.

Do people think we need a separate page on propellant use? There is a lot on this topic in the article, even after I edited down some from the earlier version. This aspect seems to attract a lot of interest from contributors. It is now covered in the "uses" section and the "concentration" section. I can see that a separate page might be of more value as a wikilink from pages on rockets and submarines. What do people think? Walkerma 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• No, I think the layout is fine as it is. The relevant sections are signalled in the opening paragraph and TOC, so are easy to find for non-chemists. A seperate article, to be good, would have to duplicate much of the chemistry which is now here. We have similar problems with the toxicology of chemicals such as cyanides or arsenic compounds, to which we devote more space than other chemical encyclopaedias because of the interest of certain of our contributors: I still don't believe there is anything to be gained from separating them from the rest of the properties/uses of the compounds in question. Physchim62 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out a small but common technical error. The phrase "specific impulse (Isp) of 161 s (1.6 kN•s/kg)" is incorrect. When given in SI (MKS) units, specific impulse (or the preferred term "exhaust velocity") has the units of "m/s", not "s". The use of "s" for specific impulse comes from the (dubious) use of American engineering units of lbf and lbm. In the case given, 1.6 kN•s/kg would give an exhaust velocity of 1,600 m/s. See the Wikipedia article on specific impulse. Dicksonl 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Peroxide

What is the acronym HTP in the discussion on use as a propellant?

High Test Peroxide. Physchim62 15:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Peroxide as fuel

There are some links to this article from submarine articles that talk about the use of peroxide as fuel. Could someone who is familiar with this add some text on that subject? Thank you. -- Jeff Q 10:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I will move those links to hydrogen peroxide, since that is the peroxide they are talking about. I will copy your comments to Talk:Hydrogen peroxide. Securiger 01:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have also heard that John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace wanted to use 90 % peroxide as fuel for their rocket (but couldn't get it). Anyone qualified to comment on peroxide's use as submarine or rocket fuel? :) Brutulf 18:37, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

See above re copying comments. BTW I find it difficult to believe that an aerospace researcher could not obtain 90% H2O2; it is reasonably common as an industrial chemical. Securiger 01:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Believe it. It's reasonably common in lower concentrations; the difficulty, as mentioned in the article, is increasing the concentration. The few industrial plants that used to manufacture it in higher concentrations were shut down for lack of demand, and researchers have not generated enough demand to re-open them (in the possibly biased, but still controlling, opinion of the owners of said plants).

It's reasonably widely available in the US in 35 and 70% concentrations, but it's full of 'stabilisers'; which much up catalysts. It's also available in higher concentrations through various suppliers; but atleast one of them (FMC) took one look at Carmack's website, checked with their lawyers, and then refused to sell to him, and he was going to buy metric tonnes of the stuff, and had the money to buy it.

Removing the stabilisers is possible, but the processes to do this are slow, and the end-result, 90+% peroxide is reasonably dangerous. Noteably, sparging *increases* the concentration of the stabilisers; and in high concentrations these 'stabilisers' have been known to cause runaway decomposition; which can lead to detonation. WolfKeeper 23:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

perodixe as fuel is a state of matter that cannot be any in a change of matter and cannot be in detenation but will help he solid,liquid, gas and the bosse einstein with the NASA improvement

Reactions of Hydrogen Peroxide

Does anyone know how hydrogen peroxide reacts when it comes in contact with metal? My colleague did one test with a bolt and predicted it had expanded to 1000 times it's original size.

Rusty metal may well act as a catalyst for the decomposition to water and oxygen, so it's important to keep rust away from it. Aluminium is less likely to cause a problem, though that's a prediction, not based on experimental evidence. Walkerma 8 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

The reaction is due to the Fenton Oxidation Process. The increment in the size of bolt is due to the formation and deposition of Hydrous Ferric oxide on the bolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.145.230 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) _{Subscript text ---- Insert non-formatted text here} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.120.71 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

H2O2 to power a motorbike?

Hi I've seen this guy that says he powers a motorbike with only a modified carburetor with a water-based fuel on the local (NZ) 60 minutes. Mechanic checked the bike and didn't found anything unusual and that guy showed how to make the fuel by putting water into a box and connect some wires. The uni professors suspects that it was electrolysis but have no idea other than that. Is it possible to power a motorbike with H2O2? Is it possible that electrolysis + some other thing will make H2O2 from water? Is it concentrated enough if it's made that way? --antilived 08:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Not unless the bike had a side car loaded down with the most advanced gear You’ve ever seen just ask Alan Alda on alternatively powered vehicles

I have seen a rocket (H2O2 powered) on a Suzuki750 600 mil per hour

Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor

I am aware that H2O2 vapor is used to sterilize equipment in the pharma industry, but I am unsure how this is actually done. Presumably, there is a vapor generator that takes the H2O2 to produce the vapor, but what strength peroxide is used and how is the vapor formed and controlled.

Phil.

storage of h2o2

h2o2 *can* be safely stored in stainless steel, but only in 316 stainless steel, that has been carefully manufactured so that the chromium in it does not come to the surface. Also it can not only be stored in pure Al containers it can also be stored using some Al alloys used in aerospace 50% can be safely stored in plastic jerry cans.

Order of topics

This may just be my opinion, but wouldn't it be better to have the physical/chemical properties first, and have the uses later? Olin

I was the one who put in most of the headings, and I also wrote quite a lot of the phys/chem properties (August 2005). "Uses" was one of the few headings in the old version, the others being "decomposition" and "concentration." Although I usually put Phys & Chem properties first, I chose to leave uses at the top in this case because I thought that most users looking at the article would be looking at that aspect. Before I added things like a structure drawing, nearly all of the article centered around (a) Use in rockets, (b) Use in submarines (c) Controversial therapeutic use and (d) Domestic uses. So although I as a chemist would agree with you, I judged that the average person accessing the article was interested in uses. If others see this and we get a consensus agreeing with you, I have no problem in you reorganising the article. Walkerma 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also a chemist, I see no problems in listing the uses first. But that is probably since I am also thinking about the interest to the general public in the first place. Of larger concern to me is, however, that "Storage" is listed under "Uses", which is quite un-intuitive. (IP-logged 26 July 2007)

As a user who checked this page out purely to find more information on its "domestic uses" (read: disinfectant usages), I agree that such a common household chemical should see its uses further up at the top for the sake of the majority of readers, who would be looking more for that than its composition and other chemical features. ;)...

...and as a sidenote, I feel the need to ask whether H202 (3% solution) would have a tendency to break apart recent scar tissue? (TMI WARNING: The squeamish may wish to ignore the next sentence...)... I cracked a toenail open pretty badly a few days ago (bled at least slightly if not considerably for at least two or three days before it started to actually close up much, even with near-constant pressure from bandaids, argh), and am wondering how often I should dare use the stuff on it, since I don't obviously want it to get infected and H202 is well, in my house right now and fairly inexpensive, but at least one part of the nail (yes, the part that's supposed to just be on the surface of the toe. And yes, it still hurts) is only being held on to the toe anymore by what would seem to be only fresh scar tissue (it was practically coming off entirely up until yesterday, and now it's not, let's put it that way). I don't want the healing process to be impeded too badly, but the risk of infection seemed relatively high to me, given the nature of the wound. That... and I'm frankly just plain curious at this point. :P

Also, can I assume that hospitals use some form of the solution to clean blood off of their laundry? It would make sense, given the apparently common use of it for such in non-professional contexts... 4.235.9.185 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

molar mass

is the molar mass something like 34g/mol (H2O2) instead of 46g/mol as it is written in the article?

Yup. Looks like it was vandalised on the 22 January. I've reverted it.WolfKeeper 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Practical chemical investigation for NCEA Level 3 (New Zealand Education system) on Hydrogen Peroxide

I'm looking for adivce on a practical investigation in my chem class. I haven't been handed the assessment criteria yet, but when I do get it I will put it up here.

I know that it has to involve titrations on oxidation/reduction reactions and/or acid/base. Now, I'm thinking that Hydrogen Peroxide would be a good compound to investigate because it can be an acid or a base, a reductant or an oxidant.

Because this is at NCEA Level 3 (Bursary Level) I need my investigation to have a purpose, and that purpose must leave room (alot of room!) for disscusion, as thats where I'll be able to get an Excellence (highest grade) for my investigation.

I'm thinking of investigating the decomposition of low-concerntration Hydrogen Peroxide in different temperatures or some other variable. If theres anyone out there who can give me advice or recommendations about this please post something here, or email me at Monotrinity@hotmail.com. I'll need to record any help you give me for proof of authenticity, so I'd need a name and other details that you put in a biography if you do contribute.

Thanks a bunch! 210.55.230.121 20:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)New Zealand Chemistry Student

How would you measure the concentration of a solution of hydrogen peroxide? There are many, many different ways, and plenty of room for discussion as to which is the best in a given situation. Physchim62 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the purpose is to involve a titration in your investigation (to find the concentration), but I could be wrong. This is in a classroom not a lab, and the school has limited resources, so more complex methods might be unavalible to me.

Thanks for responding! 210.55.230.121 20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) New Zealand Chemistry Student

History missing

Although this is very thorough for scientific/chemical purposes, I was looking for something of the behind the discovery and historical uses of hydrogen peroxide. That kind of information is completely missing. Did the alchemists have it? The Victorians? What were they using it for?

Corgi 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief history section. Itub 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to update based on Reuters Article?

US issues high-strength hydrogen peroxide warning Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:59pm ET253 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Drinking or injecting high-strength hydrogen peroxide products sold online to treat serious diseases such as AIDS can be extremely harmful, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.

The "35 percent food grade hydrogen peroxide" products are highly corrosive and ingesting them could cause stomach irritation and ulcers, the Food and Drug Administration said.

Injecting the products intravenously could lead to blood vessel inflammation, bubbles in blood vessels and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions, the agency added.

The FDA said it had not approved 35 percent hydrogen peroxide for any use. The agency sent warnings to two Texas-based firms, DFWX and Frad 35 Inc., that it said were illegally selling 35 percent hydrogen peroxide products to treat AIDS, cancer, emphysema and other serious diseases.

"No one has presented any evidence that hydrogen peroxide taken internally has any medical value. In fact, consuming hydrogen peroxide in the manner touted by these Web sites could lead to tragic results," Dr. Steven Galson, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Donald Worden, owner of Frad 35 Inc., said he would continue selling his 35 percent hydrogen peroxide product. He said his Web site provided links to information about potential medical uses but that he was not promoting it for that purpose.

"There are references to what doctors and other publications have done. I make reference to that only to give ... people information that they want," Worden said in an interview.

He said the military, universities and independent laboratories were among his clients. He added that his product was "technical grade," which his Web site said could be used for treating waste water.

The strength of hydrogen peroxide solutions sold over-the-counter for disinfecting wounds is 3 percent.

Officials at DFWX were not immediately available for comment.

It would be helpful if someone could find an online reference to this article. Keeping it on this page is copyright violation, although I will let it rest for seven days for the purposes of discussion (which I interpret as being within U.S. fair use in this particular case) Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just searching for "peroxide" in google news: [1] . Itub 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Use as an emetic - anyone?

I found this article while searching for information on H202 as an emetic for veterinary use; it is often recommended as a first line for accidental poisonings in dogs. Perhaps this would be a useful addition? [[2] --NinaRachel 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've added a line about it to the article. --Itub 01:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Safety/Hazards

Dear all, this article contains a section 'hazards'. I, and some editors with me, do believe that such sections are quite dangerous. The information can be added by anyone, and can therefore be wrong, moreover, it is a subset of all the data available in an MSDS. I believe that this is giving more than a risk, people may use the chemical, because the article does not say anything about it's toxicity when you drink it. Therefore one has to be very careful with this type of information.

Specifically for this section in this article, there are parts which do not belong in a hazard section, and all of the information is unreferenced.

For that reason the section was aed down to a minimum. I confess that thereby some info got lost, which I have tried to reinstate later in more appropriate places.

I propose to remove the hazard section, move some of the data to other parts of the document, and to put a small safety section back, which only tells the bare minimum (as e.g. in this version ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The safety parts are, ironically, often the most hazardous parts of the WE-chem. Anyone, regardless of their chemical training, can add their favorite story or advice often little of the information in verifiable. For this reason, I migrated a substantial section of this article on anti-parasitics to the article on Parasitism where the information is in context and can be judged by more relevant experts, IMHO. If the report on steel discussed the hazards of driving (steel) cars, I would likewise recommend that the hazards be relocated to automobile. When, however, the hazard section describes the mechanism of the hazard (e.g. how H2O2 does its thing), then I would lean to leaving this in the article.--Smokefoot 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally concur (it's the hand that holds the hammer that inflicts the pain when you mis the pin, not the steel). See hydrogen sulfide, safety-section vs. toxicity section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's not the fall that kills, it's the abrupt deceleration at the end", "The most common cause of death is lack of oxygen to the brain" Physchim62 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Safety sections can be referenced, and there are a number of reputable sources available on-line. The most difficult part, in my experience, is making them readable! Acetic acid got to FA with its safety section, so this challenge is not impossible. Certainly we should be firm on insisting on verifiable, official references, as WP is not the place for rumour or anecdotes. Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I do concur that it is possible to write it in a good way, I am still pondering if it is in conflict with WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 4, '...not include instruction - advice (legal, medical or otherwise), ..')? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree, with this concept of intentionally limiting information. All forms of all information are potentially dangerous. Give me more info, not less. 69.87.194.77 00:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

69.87.194.77, info can be available on other mediawiki sources. For example, synthesis of some compounds are not discribed here, where they would not comply with wp:not, but on wikibooks, and the article contains a link to there. There is a question of liability here, so if you believe that such info should be on the mediawiki, surely this is not the place to address that, but probably on the talk-page of e.g. wp:not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For compounds as common as hydrogen peroxide, there are sufficient official, peer-reviewed sources to cite. There is no reason to go beyond them. We are not in our role as an encyclopedia by encouraging speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the section on hazards should be removed along with all information on storage and handling of high strength peroxide. There is information about storage that is flat wrong. I have attempted to correct it in the past only to have my corrections later replaced with more BS. I tried to add a warning to this effect in the article only to have the change reverted, with the reverter referring me to "what wikipedia is not" and telling me to use my knowledge to fix the page. Well, one thing that page does *not* say is that Wikipedia is not a source of safety information, and I've already attempted to fix the page. You will need to pay me to get me to attempt to fix the page over and over again. I give up. Kg6cvv 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be nice and add "needs citation" tags to the bogus claims about how to store high strength peroxide. Since these are safety critical, I really don't think this article deserves "A" and "good article" ratings until they are fixed. Kg6cvv 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that specific edit, and will explain myself a bit further. Your text, as I reverted it, was certainly not in it's place, it would have been in it's place here on the talkpage. Moreover, the specific reverted text did not specify which specific information was wrong, or where the errors were. I reffered to wp:not, as in earlier parts of this discussion for 'wikipedia is not a manual' .. that includes, in my opinion, not a safety manual. Unfortunately, wrong information creeps in, but we have to take into account that there are only a few specialised dedicated editors in the field on Wikipedia, and, even though I am a chemist, and I do use strong oxidisers every now and then, I am far from a specialist on hydrogen peroxide. I do understand the incompatibilities of oxidisers with certian materials, but specifics, no. As I said, there are some chemists around here, doing edits, but there are many pages to monitor, upgrade, start, enhance, rewrite, control, whatever. And though we catch many edits, we may have missed some 'bogus' edits (also the specialists are only volunteers).

You describe some earlier edits. Unfortunately, I cannot find those, your account is quite new, I expect they were as an anonymous editor. That is, off course, not a problem. There are many good edits by anonymous editors, though they are in general treated with a bit more caution, especially when they are not cited. Edits will, in time, move around a document, until it has reached a more or less stable form. That may result in a deterioration of the article status (this article has been a Good Article, but it is not, anymore), but a general upward trend should be there. The article currently has A-status, which is quite correct. I do concur, there may be improvements possible, but that will always be the case (even for articles with FA-status). But I think the article is complete, except, apparently, some bogus information. I hope you will be volunteering to help us bring (and keep) the article in a better shape. Kind regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Use in contact lens cleaning solutions

Under "Domestic uses", is it worth mentioning that hydrogen peroxide is also used in some contact lens cleaning kits? For example, Oxysept, which is a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution; you put it in a little plastic vial along with your contacts and some tablets (consisting of sodium chloride and sodium phosphate, I think); there's also another brand which I'll check up on next time I'm at the pharmacy which uses some metal catalyst (not sure of the exact chemistry with that one). Obviously, once you're done with this process, you wash it off before putting contacts back in the eyes. Someone with more knowledge help me out here, thanks. =) cab 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The hydrogen peroxide will probably be working as a mild antiseptic in this case: there are certainly metal catalysts which will speed up this role, and they are (sometimes) used in washing powders for similar reasons. Can you supply a website for Oxysept, or scan in the product composition? Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A review of Tyler's Quarterly does not mention Oxysept(The name may now be AOSept) as being available today. Advanced Medical Optics sells a 3% H2O2 product called Ultracare. Ciba Vision has two products, Clear Care and AOSept. Sauflon Pharmacueticals has a product called Sauflon One-Step. 3% H2O2 products are excellent disinfectant systems for gas permeable or soft contact lenses. I use Clear Care with great results in our manufacturing lab. It breaks down to saline water in 8 hours and lenses can be inserted into the eye after the 8 hours. Many wearers will rinse their lenses with a preserved saline solution as a safety procaution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Vaske (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling?

In the final sentence of the article, is that supposed to be "oxygen" instead of "oxegen"?Lestrade 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Peroxide Pics

I Have A Picture Of A Bottle And Of Fizzing On A Small Wound And In Contact With Other Items such as egg. Would These Be Ok To Put Up? Offensiveandconfusing 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric pollutant

hydrogen peroxide H2O2 can be a seccondary pollutant in Photochemical Smog I think this should be included somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Randor (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed Common Cold Cure

I removed this:

Another "alternative" use of hydrogen peroxide is to prevent the common cold. A cotton swab is dipped in 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide and then used to clean the ear canal. The theory is that the cold virus incubates in the ear canal before spreading to the rest of the mucous membranes. So killing the virus while it is still in the ear canal aims to prevent the cold altogether.

The is just a broken link, and such an extraordinary claim as a cure for the common cold needs to be cited with atleast a reference thats not just a broken link, and probably needs a bit of a highers standard than that--i.e. a reference to a very credible source--considering the extraoridinary nature of the claim.Brentt 04:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am the one who included this blurb, though originally with a different, admittedly "not very good" reference. I stumbled across the claim while looking for something to prevent me from getting the 6 or 7 colds a year I get nowadays. Doing a google search returns a lot more of these kinds of claims. Here was the original that I found. According to this, "pharmaceutical grade" 3% concentration should not be used internally; only diluted "food grade" should be used. This mentions a study by Richard Simmons regarding colds entering the body via the ear canal, and German research treating colds and flu with hydrogen peroxide. This mentions the same thing. Anecdotally, after finding this information I tried the solution mentioned above when I felt a cold coming on, felt something "odd" in my throat where the colds normally originate, and the cold disappeared. So it seems there is something to this. What do you think is required to get this put back in the main article, as it seems like this would be very useful information for people to have? --greenmoss 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of HP on a cotton swab does help with ear aches, though probably moreso if the ear ache is due to exposure to chemicals rather than exposure to bacteria. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.75.185 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Someone has added this nonsense at the end of the main description: "Do not put it on your dick if you have a cut on it, it fuckin hurts!!" I can't seem to remove it. Can someone help? 80.104.143.235 05:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this - I think it may be a cache problem - try refreshing your browser. It was spotted by one of our chemists and reverted after 6 minutes, you were just unlucky. Thanks for reporting it! Walkerma 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

someone has changed the title of the .png image to read about something about kayla being a retard. if someone could please change it back.196.209.3.15 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Melting Point

I checked 1992 handbook of chemistry had melting point of hydrogen peroxide at -0.41 degrees celsius.

Article posted on how this page shows Wikipedia is horrible

The article http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/12/20/the-stupidity-of-crowds/, which talks about how "errors" in the Storage section of this article prove how Wikipedia is just a bunch of illiterate morons who care more about proving themselves right than facts (etc., etc.), has been posted on the front page of Reddit. 72.224.97.185 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Never heard that one before. — Omegatron 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"higher hydrogen peroxide"

Is this relevant at all? — Omegatron 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

How would you measure the time taken for hydrogen peroxide to break down? How do we know hydrogen peroxide has broken down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.164.10 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

it gives off bubbles of oxygen Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

H2O2 decomposition and pH

When H2O2 is dissolved in water how is the decomposion dependent on pH and what is the reaction? Is there a pH that will effectively remove the H2O2? I know temp would but I am interested in pH for 2 or 3% h2O2 you can buy in USA grocery store —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.200.162 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe it is less stable at alkaline pH. The reaction forms water and O2 as shown in the article. If you just want to decompose it, some rust will do this faster than alkali, however. Walkerma 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the question regarding dog waste and forgot to sign. Scottatobviascott@obvia.bizScottatobvia My question was, will hydrogen peroxide kill pathogens such as hook worm, round worm and heart worm in dog waste?

Name

This is original research, but this may be confirmed. The name "hydrogen peroxide" does not follow any scientific nomenclature, so this is my idea: Hydrogen peroxide is similar to water in chemical composition. The only difference is that there are two oxygen atoms. Therefore, there are two hydrogen and two oxygen, which makes it one hydrogen for each oxygen; in other words, one hydrogen per oxygen, so hydrogen per oxygen(oxide), making "hydrogen peroxide". Anyway, I have added this in under "history" with a citation needed tag. W1k13rh3nry 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Nice thought, but the fact is that chemists have long used the Latin prefix "per" in one of its senses-- that of "beyond" -- to mean "as many as possible" or "maximum." Thus, perxenates, periodates, pertechnates and permanganates are all names for compounds where the primary element is in the maximal oxidation state. And perfluoro- compounds have as many hydrogens replaced by fluorine as possible, or have as many flourines on the carbon backbone as possible. Thus, metal peroxides are distinguished from mere metal oxides as having as much oxygen as possible. Potassium oxide: K2O. Potassium peroxide: K2O2. From this nomenclature for the metal oxides, the name for the congugate acid is automatic: hydrogen peroxide. There you are. No, I don't have a ref. But you can add this (which is the correct etymology), and put "Cite needed." SBHarris 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. An exception is that there is also KO2, called potassium superoxide. But no, KO3 is not potassium super-duperoxide. ;-) --Itub 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, peroxide is a polyatomic anion (O₂)^-2. I noticed that the article cited Dihydrogen Peroxide as the proper nomenclature, but this is actually incorrect. As the person above said, peroxide is the correct way to express this compound. (Therefore I am correcting the mistake in this article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.193.97 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Second pK_a of hydrogen peroxide

What is the pK_a of the hydroperoxide ion HO₂^-? I think it should be posted on the page. Or, does anyone know the basicity of any of the ionic peroxides of the alkali metals or alkaline earth metals (since we can divide K_b into 10^-14 to obtain the K_a of the conjugate acid). Bbi5291 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Section with no context removed

I've removed this section because it has no context, and really seemed out of place. If someone can write an intro for it to clarify what it is about, that would be helpful. Then it can be returned to the article.

Hydrogen peroxide is increasingly popular for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide and iron. Catalytic carbon and redox media perform well with hydrogen peroxide pretreatment. Generally 90% of the reaction between hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen sulfide takes place within 10 to 15 minutes, with the balance reacting in an additional 20 to 30 minutes. The sulfur in hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) is in the -2 state. In a neutral solution, hydrogen peroxide will oxidize hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur via the following reaction: 8 H₂S(g) + 8 H₂O₂(aq) → S₈(s) + 16 H₂O(l) The reaction is slow but may be catalyzed by metal ions. To be more specific for doses of chemical feed levels for oxidation of iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide in domestic water supplies, here are some figures: Iron: For each ppm Fe feed = 0.3 - 0.5 ppm, 20 minutes Manganese: For each ppm Mn feed = 0.8 - 1.0 ppm, 20 minutes Hydrogen Sulfide: For each ppm H₂S feed = 1.0 - 1.5 ppm, 30 minutes (all above figures are for minimum retention time). When more than one constituent is to be oxidized (i.e. iron & H₂S) add the above values to determine the total ppm feed needed to oxidize two or more.

--Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Acid/Base?

http://www.h2o2.com/intro/faq.html#15

Indicates that peroxide is never a base, though its acidity varies according to concentration in a solution. In its pure form it is an acid, and that should be represented here. While this is said in the intro, it is contradicted further down in the article. Fearwig 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. The table you quote only means that H2O2 is more acidic than water. But that doesn't mean it's not also a base. When you add a strong enough acid, H2O2 can accept protons (or donate a pair of electrons), thus acting as a base. --Itub 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Catalyst

89.129.135.115 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC) NEWBEE HERE...

I added the following link (subsequently removed): http://cambridgeinvestmentresearch.com/uploads/HVMMNTSE06WillBartonOxfordCatalysts.pdf

With the description: pdf PDF describing company with new catalyst which converts Hydrogen Peroxide and alcohol into superheated steam (the PDF contains information less-than impartial

... because I saw nothing in the main article discussing _this_ particular reaction (a new catalyst for alcohol/hydrogen peroxide producing superheated steam cheaply and easily). It seems to me that the uses for this catalytic reaction would be inumerable. Actually, I was hoping someone (a chemist?) would follow the link, see that it was an innovation, and revise the article accordingly. I suppose I should have done it myself, but I don't think I'm enough of a "techie" to do so. Anybody else see this catalytic reaction as new and unique and worth mentioning?

89.129.141.95 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Could you please direct me to the correct link for specific help on editing, re: adding footnotes and correct formatting? Thank you very much.

You may want to take a look at WP:CITE for some guidance on adding footnotes. I associated the reference you had added along with the text you had added by by using <ref> and </ref> to bracket the reference where the associated material appears in the main text. Keep in mind that although your posts on Talk/Discussion pages should be signed, your contributions to the articles themselves should not be signed.--GregRM 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have also mentioned WP:FOOT for guidance on adding footnotes.--GregRM 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps review

This article received Good Article status in December of 2005, when the GA program was in its infancy. The Good Article criteria have changed considerably since then, and unfortunately this article does not meet the criteria. First and foremost, is insufficient citation problems, most obvious of which are the numerous 'citation needed' templates throughout the article. Secondly, there are entire sections of information that are without sources, so additional references are clearly needed. Thirdly, there are non-inline citations and inline citations in the 'references' section. The non-inline citations should be moved to a different section, so that only inline citations are present (recommend moving them to 'further reading').

The lead section is far too short for an article of this size. Recommend taking a look at WP:LEAD for guidelines on improving this section. It should be a good summary of the article.

The external links section is getting a bit long. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on what external links should & shouldn't be included to help prune this section.

The article can be renominated for GA status at WP:GAN once the issues are addressed, and it meets the criteria again. Cheers! Dr. Cash 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Acetone Hazard

why hasnt anyone stressed the importance of the Acetone reaction? Acetone Peroxide is hard to detect, easily Lethal, and can be made in the home, without protected materials! acetone can even be found in cigarretes, imagine what could happen if a cigarrete fell into a bottle of household hydrogen peroxide!! Ω: Rendered Null and Void 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

btw i accidentally forgot to sign the first time so i copied the text and deleted the section, this is the copy, with my sig added so you know its me. sorry for the trouble, im new to this format! Ω: Rendered Null and Void 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Any accidental production of acetone peroxide in the home is not likely to be of bomb making quality. (2) Don't put the cigarette in the mouth, or light the cigarette afterwards. (3) Acetone is not an ingredient of cigarettes; but it may be a byproduct of smoking the cigarette.Pyrotec 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

oh. still the fact of its danger should at least be mentioned, perhaps by adding "explosive" in front of the link to it, which would attract the attention of anyone interested in using hydrogen peroxide, so they would know of that danger. Ω: Rendered Null and Void 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You need concentrated hydrogen peroxide to do that reaction (at least 30%, I'd say). No need to worry about your household hydrogen peroxide, which is diluted to about 3%. --Itub 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

oh. well the suggestion above was meant for buisnessmen, etc. who might be using that concentration.Ω: Rendered Null and Void 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A disinfectant...Really???

According to this article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19real.html

hydrogen peroxide is not a disinfectant! I talked about this with a friend of mine who is a nurse, who agreed that hydrogen peroxide is not a disinfectant. In fact, it seems at times to impair healing because it will kill tissue around a wound. So I have a source that hydrogen peroxide is not a disinfectant...does someone have a better source that it is? This seems to be an important point/misconception. Bdushaw 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If it kills living tissue, it probably kills bacteria too. Also, the foaming reaction physically washes out dirt and other foreign material, which helps prevent infection. (Got that from an EMT, also needs a good source.) --Kanhef (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a Reader's Digest (I think) article on common health myths (which I believe cited its sources) that addressed this in recent (I believe the last one or two) years, actually, and I've also been looking into this... and you're actually apparently both right - hydrogen peroxide is indeed a disinfectant/wound cleaner and (according to the current revision of the wp article) apparently even helps end bleeding somewhat more quickly in small cuts by restricting blood vessels or some such, but it is far from a gentle substance, since it basically kills living tissue period, with no real exclusivity, and is often not needed more than the first or second time the (bleeding) wound is treated. In other words, you can generally safely use it the first time to prevent initial contamination on a minor flesh wound (so long as it's not an internal injury, anyway), and possibly a second or third time if the wound is still really nasty and dirty after a few days or so, but avoid overuse; don't change the bandaid once or twice a day and use peroxide on it every time you do so, as that will eventually prove counterproductive. (This same article had an interesting note about the old wives' tale about treating burns with butter - it can provide initial relief from the pain of the burn, but often leads to horrific infections, since, of course, bacteria love dairy and other food products. Personally, I was horrified to learn this was ever so much as a folk remedy!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.9.185 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What about something of the negative effects?

Exposure to hydrogen peroxide takes place through inhalation of damp or mist, through food uptake and through skin or eye contact. Hydrogen peroxide can irritate the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Exposure of the eyes to concentrations of 5% or more can result in permanent eye damage. Tests with laboratory animals from the American International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) show that hydrogen peroxide can be carcinogenic to animals. Laboratory tests with bacteria show that hydrogen peroxide is mutagenic; it changes and damages DNA. When humans inhale hydrogen peroxide, it causes lung irritation. Skin exposure causes painful blisters, burns and skin whitening. Organs that are extra susceptible to hydrogen peroxide exposure are the lungs, the intestines, the thymus, the liver and the kidneys. The effects of chronic exposure on humans are unknown. Effects on reproduction and development are not demonstrated so far.

In the USA, hydrogen peroxide is registered as a pesticide by the EPA in 1977. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.92.66 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a source about the disinfecting qualities of Hydrogen peroxide...myself. I have used the over the counter mix as a moutwash for years now and can tell you with 100% certainty that it has had no negative impact on living tissue. It has, however, done wonders for keeping my mouth free of food particles and such. My first dental visit after I began using it, the dentist congratulated me on the wonderful job I'd been doing with flossing. I haven't touched floss in years. He made no comments whatsoever regarding any damage to my gums or inner mouth. I did mention what I had been using and he gave me a line about it being potentially dangerous...but could not back that statement up with any actual reasoning...and didn't even try when confronted with the evidence of my mouth's health.

Additionally "anecdotal" or not, the substance has been used for generations as a disinfectant. Something which could never have become commonplace if the wounds were getting worse. Someone would have noticed.

To the nurse who claimed otherwise I would say this: "Stop assuming everything you are told in medical school is correct. The medical industry has a vested interest in quashing any readily available cure for anything. There are plenty of home remedies which have worked for centuries. Why would they suddenly quit working just because current medical thought hasn't bothered "proving" them? I'm not saying to believe everything you hear...only that we need to be more open minded and trust in our own senses...even when those senses contradict the "wisdom" of so-called authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, Hydrogen Peroxide is indeed a disinfectant. I'd also like to inquire after the schooling of said nurse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.146 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The nurse in question is probably getting HP mixed up with Bleach - which does attack cells:

BLEACH http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4TX7KY2-J&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=eee2257265ed702e941a9daf731ae0b2

BLEACH ARTICLE http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6829 24.77.75.185 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another article in CNN today http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/12/vreeman.carroll.medical.myths/index.html?hpt=op_t1 supports the conclusion that hydrogen peroxide is not an antiseptic. I agree that it is a cleanser - it is a strong oxidizer, but that is not quite the same thing as an antiseptic. And hydrogen peroxide causes tissue damage that impedes healing. I've now given two valid references - the NY Times link above and this CNN link - to the effect that hydrogen peroxide is not an antiseptic/disinfectant. We should give this article a thorough once over to correct this misconception (both the articles I cite discuss this misconception explicitly). Bdushaw (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this warrants further discussion before it is put in this article that it is a misconception and is not an antiseptic. I don't know either way, and a few news articles were provided; however, the FDA has approved it as an antiseptic as well as the CDC classifies it for "disinfection and sterilization". Can we really say that it is not an antiseptic when it has been officially approved as such (is CNN or New York Times a more reliable source or even an official source for this?)? Kman543210 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless diagram

Where does the diagram for the gas-phase conformation of HP come from. It's completely meaningless to quote the internal coordinates of gas-phase HP with anything like the precision shown in the diagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.176.119 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

7th July 2005 London Bombings

Not an expert, but do live in London. Pretty sure that ALL bombs were detontaed on 7th July. It was the 21st July bombs that failed. I've made the change. Update: Confirmed. The article referenced explicity states in its opening sentence: "July 21, 2005". The incidents were very different. 21st July didn't kill anyone, 7th July killed/injured 700+ people. I doubt whether the latter used hydrogen peroxide, ripped carriages and buses to shreds.

Reference

• Jose M. Campos-Martin, Gema Blanco-Brieva, Jose L. G. Fierro (2006). "Hydrogen Peroxide Synthesis: An Outlook beyond the Anthraquinone Process". Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 45 (42): 6962–6984. doi:10.1002/anie.200503779.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I will have a look, and add whats relavant.--Stone (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen Peroxide, more "vicious" than water?

I think this is supposed to be "viscous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.192.49 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are true ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 11:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"355 Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide"

35% food grade hydrogen peroxide is growing in popularity for alternative health care and as a non-toxic alternative to chlorine treatment of swimming pools and spa. There is controversy involving the usage of hydrogen peroxide for health care and the F.D.A. has issued warnings of misuse of hydrogen peroxide in alternative self health care. 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide can be found in health supply stores and online through such sources as Guardian Of Eden, which can be found by searching the company on any search engine.

I don't see any RS. Commonly, hydrogen peroxide is available as a 30 % solution. I don't see any Sigma Aldrich offering "food grade" peroxide, though they list several other grades and concentrations. Googled this, and the links seem to be concerning fringe theories. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Accuracy of Article

From the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

"Hydrogen peroxide can be toxic if ingested, inhaled, or by contact with the skin or eyes. Inhalation of household strength hydrogen peroxide (3%) can cause respiratory irritation. Exposure to household strength hydrogen peroxide can cause mild ocular irritation. Inhalation of vapors from concentrated (higher than 10%) solutions may result in severe pulmonary irritation.

Ingestion of dilute solutions of hydrogen peroxide may result in vomiting, mild gastrointestinal irritation, gastric distension, and on rare occasions, gastrointestinal erosions or embolism (blockage of blood vessels by air bubbles). Ingestion of solutions of 10-20% strength produces similar symptoms, but exposed tissues may also be burned. Ingestion of even more concentrated solutions, in addition to the above, may also induce rapid loss of consciousness followed by respiratory paralysis.

Eye exposure to 3% hydrogen peroxide may result in pain and irritation, but severe injury is rare. More concentrated solution may result in ulceration or perforation of the cornea. Skin contact can cause irritation and temporary bleaching of the skin and hair. Contact with concentrated solutions may cause severe skin burns with blisters."

So I'd say it's pretty toxic. MissMeticulous (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In relation to which section of the article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it was changed. The other day, the article stated that hydrogen peroxide was "harmless". MissMeticulous (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By chance, I came across the Wikipedia article Benzoyl Peroxide which tipped me off that something is very wrong with this article. It makes the specific point that even though Benzoyl Peroxide breaks down into non-toxic substances, it, like H202 ("Hydrogen Peroxide is corrosive, toxic and carcinogenic"), is most harmful prior to decomposition. The BC Cancer Agency quotes a study (Okamoto, 1996) which came to the disturbing conclusion that "H2O2 acts as a carcinogen. Reactive oxygen intermediates have been reported to induce single-strand breaks in cellular DNA, oxidation of DNA bases, chromosomal aberrations, and DNA-protein cross-links." Also, this Physorg report (and this press-release mirror) had an summarised a report led by T. Goldkorn (2008): "The cells exposed to cigarettes smoke and the cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide showed the same molecular signatures of cancer development, while the unexposed cells did not." This Wikipedia article, however, makes no mention of carcinogenic potency at all and, in light of Okamoto's study being over 12 years old now, appears to have been comprehensively whitewashed by the industries concerned. Racemethorphan (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article DOES link to the MSDS, which states that H2O2 is classed as a carcinogen, and states many of the other health hazards. See next comment. Wikiwayman (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Expiry Date

I received a donation of 3% hydrogene peroxyde but it has an expiry date of May 2000. Can it still be used? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.151.235 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Concentrating regular bottled Peroxide

Adding ways to concentrate would make article more useful. Heard from one site mixing Peroxide with salt at 3:1 ration of peroxide to salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.165.144 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual that gives advice on how to prepare chemicals. See Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO.

Any discussion in this article of how H₂O₂ solutions can be concentrated should be of encyclopaedic scope. It might be within Wikipedia's reach to discuss (in general terms, not instructions) how and why H₂O₂ solutions are concentrated in industry (if this actually takes place).

21 July 2005 London bombings discusses one instance of hydrogen peroxide being used in terrorist bombs. I believe I once read that the bombers bought lots of H₂O₂(aq) and concentrated it by boiling, so there are probably plenty of news stories out there about that.

Cool it to freezing, just slushy, and filter. Do this again; you will get about 15%. The bottle will get slightly bulgy on these higher conc., so, keep it below room temp.68.231.189.108 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ben (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

20 vol 40 vol 60 vol

For hair bleaching and from pharmacists for antiseptic/mouthwash purposes in the UK, H2O2 is sold in "vol" gradings. A para explaining these would be useful.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is already in the article under the "Decomposition" section. This is because this is a measure of the decomposition of the solution to oxygen. However, it may be worth putting extra "pointer" sentences in appropriate places in the article to clarify that this is where it is. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Black hairy tongue, what???

Under "medical uses" there is a claim that hydrogen peroxide causes ulceration of the oral tissues "..which is known as black hairy tongue" A link is provided to the WP article on black hairy tongue. I suspect vandalism; even if there is such a thing as black hairy tongue, the article describes a fungal infection, not inflammation/ulceration. I don't have the subject matter knowledge to fix this, maybe one of you peroxide experts will. susato (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why per-?

Why is it called hydrogen peroxide? I can't find info on the per prefix anywhere (obvious) in the article—except, perhaps, in the reference to Peroxidase which also doesn't explain the per, as far as I can tell. Also, IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry explains per- in the context of -ate/-ite (e.g. perchlorate) but not in the context of -ide (as here). But -ate/-ite are use for polyatomic anions (e.g. cholorate) yet this is an -ide with two single atom anions (if I follow correctly). Does the "four oxyanions are possible" still hold true anyway? Thoroughly confused now... I have not done Chemistry for 20-odd years, BTW, and just came here to find out where the name came from: any help appreciated! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Per" refers to the highest possible oxidation state. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I assume you mean highest possible stable oxidation state, though? Hydrogen trioxide (which I had never heard of till I tried to find the answer to this) presumeably doesn't count since it is unstable? --Jubilee♫clipman 07:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

H2O2 is unstable, too. The reason why it is called peroxide is because it was the highest possible oxidation state at the time it was discovered. H2O3 was not known at the time. So the name "hydrogen peroxide" is technically incorrect, but it's been in use for so long that there's not much chance of it being changed. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chiral

The molecule is chiral. Can the enantiomers be separated? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is free rotation around all single bonds, as here. Thus, no chirality and no enantiomers. SBHarris 23:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To be anal: of course H₂O₂ is chiral because its ground state symmetry is C₂, so there is no way to get around it being chiral. And of course it must exists as enantiomers. But as the previous editor points out, the O-O bond rotational barrier is so low that racemization is lightening fast and one has no hope of separating the two stereoisomers.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for adding section related to peroxide for mouth wash

it kills the bacteria and freshens the breath

12.41.255.10 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ear wax

Isn't hydrogen peroxide used to remove ear wax? cntrational (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2