Talk:1,4-Dioxin

Rename
I wonder, whether [the article entitled "Dioxin" as of Oct. 16, 2007] should be renamed to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, and a disambiguation page be created under its current [as of Oct. 16, 2007] name Dioxin, with the following contents:

The name Dioxin can describe several diferent chemical substances:


 * Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin (in short PCDD)
 * Polybrominated dibenzodioxin
 * 1,2-Dioxin
 * 1,4-Dioxin
 * Dibenzodioxin
 * 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlordibenzodioxin (also known as Sevesodioxin)

What do you think?--77.234.80.83 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I'm not sure that we need a disambiguation page when only one of the possible substances has an existing article. --Itub 09:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As there is no particular enthusiasm for a disambiguation page I have edited Description, and Chemical structure to include 1,4-Dioxin. Pages will be created for this and for Dibenzodioxin, which is currently redirected to Dioxin without any information of its properties on that page. The redirection will have to be removed. LouisBB 03:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe change the article name to Polyhalogenated dibenzodioxin with Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and Polybrominated dibenzodioxin as REDIRECTS going to this article. H Padleckas 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not currently see anything in this article about polybrominated dibenzodioxins, and I doubt they are discussed anywhere else in Wikipedia. Therefore, I think we need not bother making a Polyhalogenated dibenzodioxin article or a Polybrominated dibenzodioxin REDIRECT.  Moving this article to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin would be good enough.  H Padleckas 06:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both LouisBB and I (H Padleckas) have been working on the introductory section of this article to inform the Wikipedia-reading public that dioxins originally and most correctly still refer to the two compounds with the following structures:


 * and that most if not all "popular" mentions of dioxins are simplifications that should more correctly say polychlorinated dibenzodioxins or something similar. My recommendation is as follows: (1) Move this current article to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins with appropriate simplification of the introductory section.  (2) Recreate the "Dioxin" article with the current introductory section and a link to the Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins article.  If nobody does this or objects, I might just do this myself in a few days.  H Padleckas 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support your proposal, good idea.


 * Ben 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to agree LouisBB 15:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started working offline on the above-proposed Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins intro section. H Padleckas 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just made the move I proposed based on the concurrence of User:Benjah-bmm27 and User:LouisBB. Also as I proposed, I re-created this short Dioxin article from the previous intro section of the former unmoved "Dioxin" article.  The Talk page has been moved too, and this Talk page will be has been simplified to include only this Section relevant to the re-creation of this Dioxin article.  H Padleckas 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Added Infobox with info gathered from the German WP on 1,4-dioxin. Needs checking and expanding, eg by hazard signs. LouisBB 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the disambig alert as an early warning for the reader, but admit that the article could now be better structured. LouisBB 05:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on this article offline, trying to restructure it. H Padleckas 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-1,4-dioxin (pictured here as well)." not pictured, is the picture missing or is the sentence out of place? Whmice (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. There is a lot of incorrect information on this page. I am a chemist. The structure is actually dioxane, not dioxin. Since dioxin is a controversial topic it is important to get this right. The structure shown is that of dioxane but much of the text is about dioxin. It will take a lot of work to sort this out.Falexdchema (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore the previous comment. The structure is correct.Falexdchema (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization needed
This page is quite confusing, since it purports to be about C4H4O2 dioxin, but most of the material on the page refers to "dioxin" meaning TCDD and related polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. I am removing the sections which refer to dioxin as an environmental pollutant, since all those references (e.g. reference 2) clearly mean TCDD/PCDD and not the relatively unimportant C4H4O2 dioxin this page describes. I am also changing the TCDD disambig entry to point to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and not to this page, which is largely inappropriate. Finally, I would strongly recommend pointing dioxin to that page as well, since the word almost exclusively refers to TCDD and not to C4H4O2. I won't do that now, but I would ask you to consider it. 76.19.197.209 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My edits were predictably reverted, but I am adding for now.  Once more: This article describes the little-known and extremely unimportant o-dioxin and p-dioxin, but attributes health and safety information which is relevant to the important environmental pollutants called polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and which are all generally referred to as "dioxin".  The sections I removed are not remotely relevant to o-dioxin and p-dioxin.  There's no point in my reverting until I can convince someone else to spend 2 minutes looking at the literature on "dioxin", which, you will notice, always refers specifically to TCDD or the PCDDs more generally, but never to o-dioxin or p-dioxin.  This is a good place to start.  As I suggested yesterday, a reorganization of these pages would help.  76.19.197.209 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the December 08 Irish pork contamination incident...
I've had a look at various sources of information. There is information at the UK's HPA web site here; and at the Food Standards Agency of Ireland website.

It seems to me (as a public health/health protection consultant, but not one with great knowledge specifically about dioxins) that:


 * Dioxin, above certain levels is toxic. As you drop below these levels the toxicity drops, and at low levels it is probably harmless (or, more technically, if it does any harm, it's such a small amount of harm that it's next to impossible to detect or measure it).
 * Dioxins occur naturally as well as industrially.
 * There is a certain level of dioxin in food.
 * Your body can clear dioxin, but only slowly.
 * As long as the amount of dioxin you consume, over a period of time, is less than the amount your body can clear during that period, it is unlikely to be harmful.
 * If you consume more dioxin than your body can clear, and continue to do so, the level of dioxin will gradually build up in your body (at least until you stop consuming dioxin at a greater rate than you can clear it). If you continue to do this for long enough, dioxin levels could start to reach the levels at which it becomes significantly toxic.

For this reason, "safe" levels in food are very low indeed - otherwise people who consume a lot of a contaminated product could start to build up dioxin. But, as long as you don't continue to eat it over a long period of time, it is not dangerous to consume food with dioxin levels that exceed these safety levels by a considerable margin.

I'm not 100% certain that all of the facts above are correct, but I think they're about right. Thinking it through did raise some questions about the toxicodynamics (is that a word? - pharmacodynamics doesn't seem quite right when discussing a toxin) of dioxins. HPA guidance says it has a half-life of years (I don't have it in front of me, something like 4-7 years IIRC). Is it cleared by 1st order kinetics - at a rate proportionate to the concentration of dioxin in the body, as the statement about half life implies? Or is it more like zero-order kinetics, as is the case with alcohol (cleared at a constant rate, regardless of the blood alcohol concentration). Or does it approximate more to first-order dynamics at higher concentrations, and more to zero-order at very low concentrations? --peter_english (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment is misplaced - it refers to PCDD. I have copied it to Talk:Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins Power.corrupts (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move to Dioxin (chemical) - precision must yield to usefulness
The current title of this page "Dioxin" misleads and possibly confuses many readers. To laypeople, "dioxin" invariably refers to the class of environmental pollutants Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, not this highly specific chemical compound. About 300 pages link to "dioxin" - the overwhelming majority of those refer to the environmental pollutant, not this specific chemical compound. Narrowly, from a chemist's viewpoint, the title is perfectly valid. But from a pragmatic point of view, precision must yield to usefulness. I will move this page to "Dioxin (chemical)" and let "Dioxin" redirect to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (I also considered "Dioxin (compound)", but compound is a specific chemical term, possibly confusing laypeople). Power.corrupts (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well...... I think the current dioxin (chemical) is more general than polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, since it refers to the class of compounds containing the parent heterocycle, also called dioxin. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins also belongs to this class. (chemical) sounds weird, but I see your point about utility. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, dioxin (chemical) is more general than polychlorinated dibenzodioxins - but it is all about utility, see for instance the misplaced comment above. And yes, (chemical) is a little weird, but it was the best I could come up with :-p. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
The current ref 2 to the main site doesn't lead to actual info, just a general site. delldot  &nabla;.  14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Body Response
This section made me go WTF does this even mean? It's so technical it's entirely content-free to non-biochemedics. In other words:


 * I agree, It only made vague sense to me (and I used to work for a Pharma company). I've added a couple of tage to the article.  Bit to heavy for me to re-write.   Ron h jones (Talk) 20:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization
Let's have one main article called Dioxin, and any number of sections or subordinate articles about specific dioxins.

My main interest in dioxin is as a pollutant: what levels are safe or dangerous, who says so, and on what basis?

I'm also interested in how chemists classify the various compounds called "dioxin".

Most of all, I'd like the article(s) to be accessible to the reader who has not taken a course in organic chemistry on the university level and passed it.

Specific questions:
 * 1) What's a dioxin?
 * 2) Is it poisonous?
 * 3) *How much is dangerous?
 * 4) *How much is safe?
 * 5) What are regulatory agencies doing about it?

It'll take a lot of work to do this rewrite and reorganization. Who's with me? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The content of Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins should not be transferred to the article Dioxin. The fact that PCDD are often called “dioxins” in newspapers or popular journals is no reason for doing the same in Wikipedia.
 * Please note that there is also an article Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. --Leyo 07:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the general understanding of dioxin as a type of toxicity is precisely a good reason for doing the same on wikipedia. The main point being that even with in the article polychlorinated dibenzodioxins there is considerable reference to exposure incidents where PCBs or PCDFs are the primary source of "dioxin-like" toxicity. This is the main drawback in the current organisation of this material.  It is misleading and factually inaccurate. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you missing a table like this? --Leyo 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that article is at least titled with dioxins and furans as a group, much more logical than the english language version. Just sticking a TEQ table in isn't really enough, the whole topic needs a considerable rearrangement to make logical sense, so that a search for "Dioxin" on wikipedia, from the point-of-view of a lay researcher looking for encyclopiaic information on the toxicity, sources and importance of these toxins,  leads the user in a coherent logical way to useful information.  Dioxin currently redirects to a woefully inadequate disambiguation page, where unless the user is already familiar with the terms PCDD etc is a dead end. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree -- the DAB page is a dead end. I think that the primary topic here is the class of dioxin compounds in general, and that (instead of a DAB page) we should have an overview article -- dioxin -- that covers all of the common features of the group by summarizing the contents of sub-articles on things like PCDD, TCDD, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The DAB page is the best solution. Additionally, an overview article would create too much redundancy. --Leyo 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I have already compiled a list of all the articles which mention or are pertinent to dioxin toxicity Here a quick glance through them immediately shows the need for some joined up thinking. Perhaps a "dioxin toxicity" tag to draw them together in some way? Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. I've been collecting various "dioxin" articles into Category:Dioxins lately. I also just now discovered the Dioxin controversy article. Maybe that's where my numbered questions above really ought to be answered. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I created the article 1,2-Dioxin. I suggest this article here be moved to 1,4-Dioxin. Anyone opposing? --Leyo 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We should still keep the dioxin page with a short definition (something with the C4H4O2 skeleton), followed by links to 1,2-; 1,-4; and other more exotic varieties. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the disambiguation page (dioxin)? The “normal” dioxin is 1,4-dioxin. IMHO it is sufficient to have this information there. The definition in the disambiguation page might be improved. --Leyo 16:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC) PS. There is a related thread at Talk:Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins.

We can just put the definition at dioxin, and continue to disambig from there --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved this article here and adapted Dioxin. You may want to have a look. --Leyo 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you are using the wrong chemical name!!
The names 1,4-dioxin and 1,2-dioxin are incorrect. The proper names are 1,4-dioxane and 1,2-dioxane. These chemicals have only 1 ring. They are NOT "dioxin"-like at all. "dioxin" refers only to the polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofuran families of chemicals which look like they have 3 rings.

Deana Crumbling, M.S. USEPA Washington, DC crumbling.deana@epa.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.29.5 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing two different chemical names. Dioxin and dioxane are different chemical compounds - they differ by double bonds in the ring.  "Dioxin" is used properly here, and "dioxane" is used properly at dioxane.  The term "dioxin" can be ambiguous though.  The content in this article refers to the parent compound from which polychlorinated dibenzodioxins are derived.  This article prominently states that the term “dioxin” is commonly used for derivatives of dioxin such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins.  The article at the title "Dioxin" directs the reader to the article which has the content they may be looking for.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong Chemical for the name dioxin. This is 1,4 dioxane. You can refer to the NIST Chemistry website, Chemical abstracts service or a multitude of chemistry references. Check the CAS number. Dr. John S. Canham (Ph.D. Chemistry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.11.109 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)