Talk:Surfactant

In the lungs?
What about surfactants in the lungs? Huh?


 * I believe lung surfactants are long-chain saturated phospholipids with melting points of around 42 celsius, but it would be helpful if the article contained some information about this... --Giftiger wunsch (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

English please!
What the heck is "Alkyl poly(ethylene oxide)" and "Alkyl polyglucosides"? A product I purchased instructs me to mix it with some "nonionic surfactant" so do I just pop over to the grocery store and ask what isle has Alkyl polyglucosides or what?

Thanks for remembering that an encyclopedia exists to explain words and phrases to the uninitiated.

Well this is actually a really well written article. The author can't help the fact that the chemical names "Alkyl poly(ethylene oxide)" and "Alkyl polyglucosides" are what they are. The author just cited them as examples and certainly do not represent the entire spectrum of surfactants that exist on the market today.

And no, for the most part you can't go down to the local grocery store and just pick up a surfactant. You could get some dish soap (ie Dawn) and it will most likely have SLS in it but it will also have a bunch of other crap in it (eg fragrances) that you may or may not wish to include in your formulation. I suggest you do a little more research on this topic and quit badgering the author simply because you're too ignorant to know what is going on.

Binders?
I read a website that said that inks contained binders and I'm trying to figure out some examples.

Needs detergents
I think it would be helpful if someone explained surfactants with a diagram. I feel that this article is really lacking without a picture, so someone please add one...

It would also be helpful if it explained how surfactants can remove oil and dirt.

Umm.. looks just fine to me. If you need it dumbed down, try looking up some of the terms you are having trouble with. Like "chemistry" and/or "ionic interactions". - what else?

Is ethylene oxide a surfactant? EtO has only 2 carbons, a very short chain and don't seems to be hydrofobic. What's source? - The article doesn't say ethylene oxide it says alkyl poly(ethylene oxide)... Maybe the article was changed to reflect this but alkyl poly(ethylene oxide) is a surfactant.

alkyl is a long chain hydrocarbon [-CH2-CH2-] and therefore hydrophobic

polyethylene oxide is [-CH2-CH2-O-] and therefore hydrophilic


 * The above is an unnecessary and snarky comment. When people like myself visit these pages, it's because we want to LEARN something.  I do NOT want to take yet another college course just to understand what a 'surfactant' is.  That is PRECISELY what encyclopedia articles are supposed to be for.  I grew up reading the World Book.  I could open it to any article or page and have it make sense to me.  Sure, there was always further reading to be done ... but it was optional.  This is a terrible article, as most are here at WP these days.  They are poorly worded and full of jargon - for no particular reason, except for the author's ego I'm guessing.  WP hasn't been of any real use to me in the last 4 or 5 years because of this, and yeah - I'm an engineer.  If I come here and read an article and just get more confused, then the article has failed to do its job.  I would strongly recommend that WP employ some professional editors to turn these word salads into something usable.  Cheers.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Emulsifier/Surfactant
Emulsifier goes to Emulsion, where it is treated as interchangeable with Surfactant. This is a little confusing. Should Emulsifier be separated, then combined with Surfactant? ENeville 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Surfactant" seems to describe more industrial applications while "emulsifier" describes more food-related applications. Also, emulsifier is a little bit more specific, as it implies only the intent of mixing two things together, while "surfactant" as described here can also be used to reduce surface tension. But speaking chemically, surfactants=emulsifiers. Perhaps the articles should be merged and "emulsifiers" can be a subsection of the different applications of "surfactants"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.121.188 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A tri ethanolamide?
Cocoyl TEA exists as a stable substance? If so, it should be listed as cationic, not nonionic. 216.179.3.141 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) robgood@bestweb.net NO, you can't form an amide with triethanolamine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.143.123 (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Title
Shouldn't this article be moved to Surface active agent, since 'surfactant' is really an abbreviation for the that? FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Surfactant is now just another English noun (it appears in dictionaries) and is used way more often than "surface active agent". For similar examples of abbreviations or acronyms that evolved into normal English words, consider laser, radar, sonar, scuba... --Itub (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Properties
The last paragraph in the properties section launches into talk about using surfactants in agriculture rather abruptly. It appears like it's just an orphaned idea in the wrong section. Funtaff (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was just about to comment on that when I noticed your comment. It should be either removed or given a separate title. --Giftiger wunsch (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Classification
Concering classification I think it is not neccesarily to have an exhausive list of all kinds of derivatives. Ito should be enough to describe anionic, non-ionic and cationic. Also HLB-value and other relevant parameters shuld be defined. Langbein Rise (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"detergent, wetting agent, or emulsifier" needs more.
The first paragraph has confused me. The statement is made dividing surfactants into three categories: detergents, wetting agents, and emulsifiers. There does not appear to be more information about the differences. Also, wetting agent just links back to surfactant. This doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks, 12.129.98.129 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Jon

I agree. I'm trying to understand the differences/similarities with respect to interchageability, or substitutability. A section comparing & contrasting both the TERMS as well as the CHEMICALS seems both relevant & necessary. It almost seems worthy of a separate article, but that also seems unnecessarily complex. Simply adding the same section to each article would be more user-friendly. Steve8394 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ingredient in my "SLS-free" shampoo
I recently purchased an allegedly "green"/"natural" shampoo for $5 (too good to be true, eh!) from a brand called Live Clean. I noticed it claims to be SLS-free, but it has one puzzling ingredient on the back: "sodium methyl 2-sulfolaurate/Disodium 2-sulfolaurate/sodium lauryl sulfoacetate." Now I'm an amateur when it comes to chemistry, but it sounds like they're misleading when they say it's SLS-free. Or is sulofacetate really different from sulfate? I ask here because I believe it would be worth mentioning in the article. -- Sweet Nightmares  (awaken)  06:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much of the popular avoidance of "SLS" is based on any sort of research based chemistry or medicine, but from what I've seen the focus seems to be on avoiding specifically the sulfate "SLS" substances, in particular Sodium lauryl sulfate. Hence the switch to more exotic variants as you found in your shampoo. As to whether these alternatives are "milder" or otherwise preferrable for each specific application, I don't think solid research is available. But since some consumers prefer "SLS-free" products, the market delivers. "Sodium lauryl sulfoacetate" is chemically different from Sodium lauryl sulfate though, no doubt about that. But as to how different their properties are, you may want to ask at the Reference desk. Siawase (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Biosurfactant
I propose merging biosurfactant into the main surfactant article. It is a stub that doesn't do well on its own, also it should be expanded to address the surfactant found in lungs Quickone (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Any info MONO 818 ?
I have been doing some reference work on glyphosate formulations for purposes of evaluating commercial products for aquatic application. There is an annoying (to my mind disgraceful) tendency to withhold information on so-called inert ingredients. Notoriously in the case of glyphosate products, the active ingredient is less toxic to non-target organisms than the inert ingredients such as surfactants. One such is referred to as MONO 818 or MONO818. Articles (especially non-technical) generally refer grandly to it as the surfactant, and some ominously speak of its toxicity, but that is all hand-waving. I found one that refers to it as NOT being POEA and being one of Monsanto's standard glyphosate nonionic surfactants, which was the first helpful remark in a long google search. I would like to have either a stub on MONO 818, or some mention of its nature and function in the surfactants article, if only authoritative remarks on its generic nature, to assist anyone else searching in WP. Thanks for any info (or for helpful updates or redirs. JonRichfield (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Henkel (an oil-seed company at heart) supplies "Lorol 818", which according to Ullmann's Encyclopedia contains a "wide range of C8 – C18 alcohols." BTW, if you search for toxicity, you risk finding alarming prose written by scientifically illiterates.  Much of the tox information requires some sophistication to interpret.  Some surfactants can be bad for aquatic life, such as those produced by ethoxylation.  --Smokefoot (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That Lorol thing sounds interesting; much thanks. But scientific illiterates? Surely you jest!!! How could such things be? ;-( In my case however, don't let it worry you. I've got the T-shirt. My current concern is strictly in line with factual writings in a specific matter, in support of a particular application. That is not as simple as it sounds though; the amount of handwaving text dealing with particular formulations of glyphosate, you would hardly believe. I might as well have been looking up power lines or microwaves. And the authors are largely cribbing each other in speaking with an air of infinite familiarity of Mono 818 and POEA, while obviously not having a clue concerning the substance of what they are echoing. I tell you, such things can be frightening -- no doubt you can match this experience: several times while editing or writing a WP article, I have had occasion to want to find something on a particular point and found pages of a google search already feeding back to me as gospel, material that I had uploaded less than an hour before, and generally from folk who gave not the slightest hint that what they regurgitated was not their own certain knowledge. That sort of thing makes me hesitate a few times before I click the "Save page" button. My stomach hurts... Meanwhile, thanks again! JonRichfield (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate.png