Talk:Acetic acid

Sourcing basic information

Since most textbooks under graduate level are inappropriate to cite, and historical references shouldn't be used for technical information, what can be used for the following statements that are fairly basic but should still have a citation:

• The hydrogen centre in the carboxyl group (−COOH) in carboxylic acids such as acetic acid can separate from the molecule by ionization:
• Acetic acid is mildly corrosive to metals including iron, magnesium, and zinc, forming hydrogen gas and salts called acetates:
• Metal acetates can also be prepared from acetic acid and an appropriate base, as in the popular "baking soda + vinegar" reaction giving off sodium acetate: (maybe this J. Chem. Ed. article? )

Reconrabbit 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think textbooks and historical references need be excluded in general. These claims could well be verified by such sources. Often stuff like this is only in such sources because the content is expected to be learned before grad school. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Textbooks can be good for low-level thematic topics, but for chemicals and more complicated topics, one usually needs either grad level textbooks or monographs. Or, if you want the real low-down on apps: User:Smokefoot#Comment on refs. Many reviews on applications seem to be hype from academics.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

While I find that I agree with you generally, for the statements listed it hardly seems necessary. Discussions of the acidity of acetic acid and its ability to corrode metals do not seem like the stuff of graduate monographs. I would be more concerned with the unqualified use of the word "ionization" in the context of an introductory sentence on acidity. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit:, I disagree with both of the premises of your first sentence (and with others who take that similarly strong position) for these claims. The simple chemical facts of these simple chemicals have not changed in many decades and are not of such a sophisticated nature that requires an advanced source to support as general statements. As Johnjbarton says, if something is so simple, common knowlege, or fundamental that it would surely be covered at a low academic level, those sources are fine. If we want to discuss them in more detail, or corner-cases, obviously a more advanced source would be needed. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We take info from where we can get it with the goal of using reliable sources. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I made these claims when I was very new to editing (and I still am) and I wouldn't stand by them now after learning more about what is and isn't appropriate. I still get it wrong but I don't stand by the claim that I made in April... my bad. Reconrabbit 13:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Access to Ullman source?

The article says:

• About 75% of acetic acid made for use in the chemical industry is made by the carbonylation of methanol, explained below.

referencing:

• Cheung H, Tanke RS, Torrence GP. "Acetic Acid". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. doi:10.1002/14356007.a01_045.pub2. ISBN 978-3-527-30673-2.

If someone has access to this source, could they verify the claim? What I would really like to know is if the Monsanto and Cativa processes account for 75% (or what number it maybe) of world wide production. A claim along those lines was recently deleted from Iodine but without the source I don't know how to improve the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The Ullmann chapter on acetic acid, updated in 2013, suggests that technologies are still shifting from Monsanto toward Cativa. The article is very dense. Here is a quote from the final paragraph of the economics section:

"[in] 2002 the share [of Rh-based processes] had increased to 74% [total acetic acid capacity]. By 2012 ca. 90% of all acetic acid is manufactured by low-pressure methanol carbonylation technologies. These carbonylation processes utilize exclusively rhodium- and iridium-based catalyst systems and the majority, ca. 65%, of these processes are based on rhodium." So those numbers are 10 years old. But almost all acetic acid is made by carbonylation of methanol, which requires iodide to convert the methanol to methyl iodide, which is the entity that actually reacts with CO. Weird little factoids ensue. Like my inclination to say that rhodium/iridium chlorides are dominant halides for those metals - it may well be that the iodides are used on a greater scale. Another factoid, iodide is a cocatalyst. Various Ullmann articles suggest that eventually chem engineers will figure out how to oxidize ethane to acetic acid with acceptable selectivity. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"colourless and faint" ?

Colourless and faint what? Why faint?  :( 86.138.99.25 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@86.138.99.25 On reading further I think it likely this was a translation error where the wrong sense was chosen as the opposite of 'strong', so I have rearranged the sentence so that it is an 'organic weak acid' not a 'faint organic acid'. 86.138.99.25 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

But I think that short description is still too verbose. "carboxylic acid" is enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:SHORTDESC needs to give context for the search bar with minimal understanding needed. I think "carboxylic" is too technical. "Chemical found in vinegar" would do but the current one is ok. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Formula

This Featured Article page had the "formula" written in the infobox as CH₃COOH until Sept. 20, 2025 when this edit by @Cesspool135 changed it. I added a source to the article for CH₃COOH and reverted the change. However my change was reverted.

I put the formula back to the Sept. 20 version and added a reference to the infobox (which I think should not be needed since it is sourced in the article). I am asking that this formula not be changed without consensus. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Nearly every single page has the molecular formula written in the infobox, not the condensed/structural formula. Cesspool135 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cesspool135 Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry#Should_the_Hill_notation_be_prefered_in_the_Chembox_formula_entry? If the consensus is that we should adopt a standard notation I'm fine with that. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"Domestic" vinegar reference

The Properties/Acidity section describes some properties at a dilution "about the concentration of domestic vinegar." However, there is nothing that describes the context for "domestic."

In my experience, household vinegar in the US is diluted to 5% acidity. However when I was living in Sweden, vinegar was diluted to 12% acidity. I can't speak for other countries (as I've only lived in those two), but my experience speaks to "domestic" being different depending on where one is living. BarryTice (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)