Talk:Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

Existence as a mutagen?
I'm presuming the salt that comes from the metabolism of DEHP behaves as a mutagen that affects the genome of stem cells. That would explain that Proposition 65 from California. What's interesting about that, though, would be that it's not DEHP that's carcinogenic or a mutagen but instead the metabolite that is carcinogenic/mutagenic. DEHP is absorbed through the skin (which is organic and has oil in it). The CDC discusses  that scientists think it getting absorbed through the skin is not a problem, but toxicity levels are relative depending on the tolerance thresholds of each individual: There are mechanisms for which genomes manage to correct any obscure mutations that occur to them via various molecular processes (I've forgotten much of my studies relative to such). I think additional information on the issue of the metabolite being a mutagen would be nice for the article, but perhaps such would be better as its own article for an entry on the metabolite. - Dennis Francis Blewett (January 12th, 2022) - updated on January 13th, 2022.

Removed plasticizer market share
Today, May 6, 2019, I removed this: " Accounting for an almost 54% market share in 2010, DEHP is a high production volume chemical. "

The reference quotes numbers for 2018 of about 3 billion tonnes of worldwide production. This number is already in the Wikipedia article. The total production of plasticizers is estimated at over 10 billion tonnes/year, so 54% market share is incorrect by more recent data. - Carax (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed???
"This colourless viscous liquid is soluble in oil, but not in water. It possesses good plasticizing properties. It also may reduce the potential penis size of developing baby boys" This needs a source. 70.89.245.137 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Create new section to add E.I. mass spectra peak number?
Reguarding the page Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

I wanted to know how, or where rather, I should add the information on the E.I. mass spectra peak for Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.

This information is relevant because a peak of 149 is often seen in E.I. mass spectra-graphic analysis of a organic synthesis's final product, for quality control or in the testing of seized street narcotics for constituents. At a peak of 149 im/z, it is common contaminant in solvents and important to note.

However, it will be a one line sentence. Maybe chembox?

And, naturally I will give reference.

Should I just make a new heading in the table of contents, under cardiotoxicity? Or where should it go?

I could probably find it eventually in the rules or recommendations in wiki's docs, but I'm really busy with other findings that need published, I'm unimpressed with wikis search system and not very proficient in finding the information I need about wiki editing yet, and this was just a quick thought that I had when I had to look up this peak.

This is the current TOC as it stands:

* 1 Production * 2 Use * 3 Environmental exposure o 3.1 Use in medical devices o 3.2 Metabolism * 4 Smaller penis size and other feminizing links * 5 Obesity * 6 Acute toxicity * 7 Cardiotoxicity * 8 Alternative Plasticizers * 9 References * 10 External links

Thoughts?

If I get no response, I'm just going to let it go and do nothing. Id rather not make an edit than one that is extraneous or ultimately gets reversed.

Thanks in advance, [DrBurningBunny 20:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)]
 * A thoughtful offer, but I would not add the EI-MS data. We have avoided adding much spectroscopic data on compounds. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I remove this from the talk page now? Just delete it? Or should it be left?
 * DrBurningBunny 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBurningBunny (talk • contribs)


 * You can leave it. As I understand it, phthalates are an important analytical contaminant class. What source were you thinking about adding? If it has a PMID you can leave it or if it has a DOI you can simply type to create a link. Perhaps a sentence is warranted. Thanks. Shootbamboo (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bis or Di - Why is it not "di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate"?
Why is the name of this compound "bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate" and not "di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate"?

It looks to me the former is incorrect. The correct name should be latter. 無聲 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Someone just needs to move (instructions included) it. Shootbamboo (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Even I feel the latter is correct: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.40.178 (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

tone of advocacy
"This is an important first step towards the phase out of phthalates in all medical devices in Europe."

That phrase doesn't really have neutral tone. It seems more the language of an advocate than an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that problem. I tried to rectify the situation. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

EU ban not yet in effect
The article says "DEHP has been phased out in Europe". It also says "will be banned from February 2015"

However, it looks to me like the ban will not go into effect until July 2020: https://chemicalwatch.com/72885/commission-adopts-eu-phthalates-restriction-decision#overlay-strip

Is there something that I'm missing here? Wikieditor775 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Di-(2-Ethylhexyl)_phthalate&redirect=no Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Leyo 13:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)