Talk:Methoxyflurane

Background

"the field of halogen chemistry [...] was poorly understood until around 1940." This sentence is complete rubbish.

Prior to the Manhattan project fluorine chemistry was a very specialized area of chemistry because both fluorine and hydrogen fluoride were (and still are) very difficult to handle (corrosive, toxic etc.). During the Manhattan project alloys were developed so that these compounds could be used on an industrial scale to prepare uranium hexafluoride for the isotope separation plant. The ready availability of fluorine led to renewed interest in organo-fluorine chemistry, which was underdeveloped relative to organo-chorine chemistry at that time. Petergans (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Petergans. Please feel free to improve this section as you see fit, hopefully providing inline citations. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The modified text is fine. One other point: UF₆ is not the only volatile compound of uranium. During the Manhattan Project hundreds of compounds were examined and UF₆ came out as the best. This info is in declassified USAEC reports to which I don't have access now. The molecular weights of the two isotopic hexafluorides are 289 and 292. It is this difference which is the basis for gaseeous diffusion separation as, according to Graham's law the rate of diffusion is inversely proportional to the square root of of the molecular weight. ²³⁵UF₆ diffuses 1.0052 times faster than ²³⁸UF₆. This figure is more significant than the difference in molecular weights.

I would not say that Miller's work was part of the M-P. It was a spin-off. Petergans (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, and I have made a few more changes in accordance with your suggestions. Accuracy is important. For some reason, I thought the molecular weights of ²³⁵UF₆ and ²³⁸UF₆ were closer to 349 g/mol and 352 g/mol. This point is a little off-topic for this article, but it is appropriately discussed in the article on gaseous diffusion. Cheers, DiverDave (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Methoxyflurane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (話) 21:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems needing to be address

1) In the "Biodegradation" section, there is a link to diuresis, which is a disambiguation page. I believe it should be directed to polyuria, but rather than make the change myself, I thought I would let you make the change in case you believe it should be otherwise.

I have changed "massive diuresis" to "vasopressin-resistant high-output renal failure (production of large volumes of poorly concentrated urine)". The toxic nephropathy caused by methoxyflurane occasionally observed after administration of methoxyflurane is a form of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. DiverDave (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2) There are several problems relating to the references. The following items have broken links:

• Refs 9 and 56
• The first link under "Further readings"
• 2 of the "External links"

I have removed all of the broken links. DiverDave (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it would be helpful to have doi/pmid id links to many of the items listed under "Further readings". Some tools you might find useful: Template:Cite pmid, Template:Cite doi. They make citing references so much easier!

All sources in the ==Notes==, ==References== and ==Further reading== sections have been reformatted. DOI, PMID, and PMC links have been added in all cases where they are available. DiverDave (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I will place this article on-hold until these reference issues can be sorted out. If you have any other questions, let me know. --Tea with toast (話) 22:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Thanks for all the improvements on the refs!

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Be prepared for increased interest in this article due to news

I was on the Twitter today and noticed that the New York City EMS website had posted an update. Apparently, methoxyflurane has continued to be used, just as the Wikipedia article says, as an anesthetic agent in Australia/ New Zealand. However, there is a new financial deal which will expand use of it in Europe, see Australia's pain relieving 'green whistle' is closing in on a $70 million deal in Europe (29 June 2015). Selectively quoting, emphasis mine:

Medical Developments International, the company behind Australia’s “green whistle” pain relief inhaler, is near to closing a $US54.5 million licensing deal in Europe. The company says it has signed a term sheet and will now move to contract with an as-yet unnamed “significant pharmaceutical” group with expertise in pain management products to distribute Penthrox, the Melbourne-made emergency pain killer... it will be responsible for investing into the development of Penthrox and registering Penthrox throughout Europe... Medical Developments International is using a new lower cost manufacturing process developed with the CSIRO to increase production of Penthrox’s underlying drug methoxyflurane by ten-fold.

Shares of the company, Medical Developments Int'l, are up 12% in one day. That means that there will be lots of interest in this Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting that we add the Business Insider news story as a link to the article. I mention this only as a heads up to editors.

Personally, I am kind of curious why the nephrotoxicity issues are not receiving more attention, but that is neither here nor there for now.

One other aside: This is a GREAT Wikipedia article! Analytical chemists, no, chemistry professionals in general, are AWESOMELY thorough! --FeralOink (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Methoxyflurane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607215010/http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/Millerobit.bpf.html to http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/Millerobit.bpf.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Methoxyflurane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715152612/http://ramcjournal.com/2007/jun07/mclennan.pdf to http://ramcjournal.com/2007/jun07/mclennan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727181737/http://www.nps.org.au/health_professionals/publications/nps_radar/2010/may_2010/methoxyflurane to http://www.nps.org.au/health_professionals/publications/nps_radar/2010/may_2010/methoxyflurane
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110329013112/http://www.wellonwell.com.au/newsletters/news44a.pdf to http://www.wellonwell.com.au/newsletters/news44a.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)