Talk:Acetone

Structure

It appears that the picture of the chemical formula is broken, since it only shows 3 bonds and one Oxygen atom for me, and the chemical formula is much more complex.

This is a standard abbreviated diagram, commonly used in organic chemistry to avoid writing CH/CH2/CH3 over and over. To interpet such diagrams, everywhere there's an unlabelled vertex put a carbon atom, and any unused carbon valences get a hydrogen atom. Securiger 13:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, to those people who have a basic knowledge of chemistry but aren't familiar with the conventions of organic chemistry it appears broken. This needs a link to a page telling people about this convention (is there such a page?)

~ender 2005-02-24 22:58:MST

The image that is displayed is the skeletal formula. It only shows the bonds between Carbon atoms, as well as other atoms or functional groups, with the exception of hydrogen. It is to show the basic shape of the molecule. Wherever there is a vertex without a label, it is a carbon atom.

DrBob, I'm interested in the cheap method of manufacture, where did you get the information on Weizmann?

-- ~ender, 2005-02-12 12:03:MST

Uses in drugs production

Acetone and other solvents are uses in purification of hundred of compounds, because diferent solvents are diferent partition coeficient for each substance. One simplest example: a solution of iodine and water can be almost completely separed adding toluene and mixing. Toluene dissolves most iodine and much less remain in water, and toluene is separed as a other layer. Most alkaloids (cocaine, cafeine, heroin, etc) are extrated from plants with solvent and purified with sequential solvent extrations of remaining solutions.

IUPAC name

I don't know which one is correct, but according to pubchem (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=180&loc=ec_rcs), the IUPAC name is propan-2-one, not propanone. Does anyone know which one is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.229.22 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "2" is redundant in this case (there is no other possible propanone), so (I believe) that both are acceptable. Buddy431 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, names vary, see https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=Acetone&Units=SI "Other names:" KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The IUPAC recommendation is (almost) always for a single name. Occasionally they list e.g. one systematic name and one common name, but even then they usually provide a recommendation as to which is preferred. Naturally the IUPAC recommendations sometimes (quite rarely) result in changes over time — compared to their recommendations last century, say.

In this context, the fact that many other names have been used from time to time by various other people and organisations is irrelevant. IUPAC is widely acknowledged as the international authority.

As far as I know,

• the old IUPAC recommendation put numbers as prefixes in front of ketone names ...
• the current IUPAC recommendation put numbers as infixes within ketone names ...
• ...but both recommendations would not include any redundant numbers as the default.

So it should be just "propanone".

From the IUPAC Blue Book (a.k.a. Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry. IUPAC Recommendations and Preferred Names 2013): (page 53 of the PDF):

"On the other hand, although acetone is a retained name recommended for general nomenclature, the preferred IUPAC name is the substitutive name propan-2-one. "

So it is "propan-2-one"

—DIV
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(49.186.96.130 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC))

Use as a skin defatting agent

Hey, I don't ever edit Wikipedia so sorry about the formatting here. But that's why I edited the talk page, not the main one :)

The entire section on "medical uses" is pretty sketchy. Note that "defatting (medical)" on this encyclopedia, while a stub, is better cited and notes defatting as a thing to be avoided.

And for those of us who have worked with acetone, you definitely DON'T want your skin all dried out using it!

The whole uncited "ancient Egypt" thing sounds like some kind of unfounded alternative medicine BS, and the "Prior to chemexfoliation, the skin should be cleaned properly and excess fat removed" is unencyclopedic.

Beyond the "Acetone is used in a variety of general medical and cosmetic applications and is also listed as a component in food additives and food packaging." there is little of value in the entire section. At the least, it should probably be merged with another section (Niche uses maybe) and more likely is appropriate for removal.

If (as I see on this talk page) acetone as a lab equipment cleaner (something that legitimately does happen, all the time - as could be cited from any undergraduate OChem lab manual) is not appropriate for the page, then certainly its use as a medical defatter isn't.

There's clearly some disconnect between that section and the rest of the article anyway, since the ketogenic diet referred to elsewhere in the article is obviously a medical use.

Subsection "Chromatography"

Section "Uses" -> "Laboratory" -> "Chromatography"

This subsection does not contain anything related to acetone at all. I suggest to remove this section. 213.232.244.41 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for pointing it out. I removed it. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)