Talk:2-Ethylhexanoic acid

Clarification - is this a typo?
Under "Health aspects" the article says "Some studies showed now subchronic oral toxicity.[1] but as a study indicated the teratogenicity of the compound the sources for exposure where evaluated." "...studies showed now..." makes little sense, and the second sentence is confusing to say the least. Firstly should this be a sentence at all, or a subclause ("...oral toxicity, but as a study...")? Secondly is "where" a typo for "were" ("...the sources for exposure were evaluated") or are we missing a few commas "...the sources for exposure, where evaluated, {something}". Either way the entire section seems to need a fairly extensive re-write to make any sense at all; currently it makes so little sense that I don't feel able to even make a guess as to what's intended, in order to rewrite it! 81.155.229.83 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Solubility
"The high solubility of these metal complexes in apolar solvents is attributable to the long hydrocarbon chain and the presence of a chiral center which leads to mixtures of diastereomeric complexes."

The above sentence does not make sense. What does a chiral center have to do with solubility?JSR (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point on two levels. The facts and the OR component of the explanation.
 * In any case, enantiomers have the same solubility of course. But when there are two or more chiral ligands in the same molecule, then diastereomers arise.  Real metal carboxylates typically have formulas like M2(O2CR)4 or M3O(O2CR)6, which can exist as many isomers, which would never crystallize.  But I will remove the section because it is just me using Wikipedia as a textbook.  --Smokefoot (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)