Talk:Paraffin wax

I would like to know the maximum length of the alkane chain found in common paraffin, e.g. in paraffin candles. -- Leocat 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) I believe 40 carbons' the max normally considered paraffin, though you'll probably find a bit of heavier impurities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.96.7.25 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where does paraffin occur in nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.118.150 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that this article mention the various meanings of the term "paraffin oil". Apparently in the UK it refers to kerosine (US kerosene), but at least in the US it can also mean "An oil either pressed or dry-distilled from paraffin distillate. Liquid petrolatum is also known as paraffin oil. Combustible. ... Used as a floor treatment; lubricant; when purified, as medicine" [Gessner G. Hawley, Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 9th edn. New York-London, etc.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977.] -- User:Thomas.Hedden 10:15, 19 December 2006 (EST) On further reflection, I wonder whether the best term for this (at least in the US) is mineral oil (see the Wikipedia article on this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.Hedden (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made the link to the Mineral oil article more obvious, with a {{Main|Mineral oil}} tag. Does this fix the problem? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The term "Mineral Oil" is not mentioned in the introduction but is featured as a section heading. There is already a more complete Mineral oil article. Why not reference that instead? I am also confused about Kerosene. The introduction of the Kerosene article contains a more understandable rundown on how these terms are used regionally and how they relate to one another. --Kvng (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also think the term "Mineral Oil" should be mentioned very soon after the start of the article. It;s good that it's a section heading, but it should also be mentioned in the introduction, among a short summary of the types of paraffin. 115.70.85.100 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)JudithReply

Mineral oil added to lead, next to octane. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

(question asked by anon user at Wikipedia:Reference desk)

Is the wax they sell for canning and for adding to some candy recipies digestible or is it like fiber in that it just passes?

As long as it's food-grade paraffin wax, it's edible but not digestable. Which means it passes right through the body without being broken down. As long as you don't eat too much or swallow a large lump of it (might cause a blockage), it's safe to eat. As you say, it is used in some candies to make them look shiny. (Eating too much of it might cause olestra-like distress, though...) Note: non-food grade paraffin wax can contain oils and other impurities which may be toxic or harmful, so it should not be eaten. -- DrBob

It is ingestible but not digestible. --ManInStone 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I asked myself the same question. In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, somebody is caught in a cave and eats all candles he can find by feeling around. It seems that couldn't really help him... Or maybe 19th century candles contained something digestible? -- dnjansen 18:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably tallow. Rmhermen 18:35, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Paraffin was not used in candles prior to 1850, before this they were either beeswax or tallow. Beeswax candles were expensive and only used by the rich. As the story was set in about 1841, they would not have had access to paraffin candles. Even after 1850, many poor people continued to use tallow candles as they could make them themselves instead of buying manufactured paraffin ones. -- 205.175.225.5 20:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article should explain more about where we get paraffin. I'm guessing it's the very high-molecular-weight fraction of crude petroleum, but I don't know; maybe it's made by reducing lower-molecular-weight hydrocarbons? Somebody who knows ... please add this info to the article.

ACW 02:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see the number of carbon atoms per chain in candle wax, parrafin oil, etc. added to this article. It would be most useful, does anyone know?

--TerrorBite 19:58, 25 Jan 2006 (AEST)

Does anyone know where to get info on the paraffin wax price in relative to crude oil prices ?? HI PL Z I WANT TO KNOW THE PRICE OFF 20 TONS OF FULLY REFINED PARAFFIN WAX 60-62 WHITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.1.5 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've been told to use Paraffin Oil (or kerosene) to stop mosquito's breeding in a water tank. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ideas/diseases/mosbites.htm#tanks

Would Paraffin Oil, which I imagine I can get from a hardware store, be harmful. I'm thinking it would be better than Kerosean. Know any better ideas?

Is it likley I can buy 'food grade' Paraffin oil easily? Or could I just use another 'food-grade' oil like sunflower oil or somthing.

Thanks, Evolve2k

What is the density of paraffin?
     At 20°C 900-910Kg m3

Why has the density of liquid paraffin not been mentioned? Waqqasd (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Probably the effects of cloaking by the somebody else's problem field--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm on a mission to prove the show Mythbusters wrong and am on a personal quest to make some paraffin wax, which I will then mix with carbon to make it burn more evenly. Is any one commercially available form of paraffin wax more flammable than another. I am assuming that food grade paraffin is not the best choice for this project. I'll be using the paraffin wax, and an oxidizer to propel a Civil War Era rocket. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

~Josh

Waxes burn, albeit pretty slowly. Paraffin wax is just like any other wax, but it does burn very cleanly, as its mainly normal alkanes. Depending on the oxidizer your using, you may want to consider fully refined paraffin, or food grade, which is <1% oil content, or a slack wax, which is anywhere form ~4% - 40% oil. Doing searches on the websites of several major oil conglomerates may also help... such as Exxon Mobil, PetroCanada, or Hase Petroleum. IGI also deals in paraffin waxes. Hope this helps.

Food grade paraffin really burns the best? I'm probably using CO2 for my oxidizer, but depending on what I turn up, I may be using NO2, because I can fit a lot more NO2 into the canister, but I’m not sure how well it would work as an oxidizer (again, still checking). I'm going to mix carbon into the paraffin wax (and it has to be paraffin wax for the test), so it will burn better. Thanks for your help.

CO2 is not a good oxydizer (it can be reduced to CO, but I doubt if this reaction can be used to propel a rocket). NO2 is a strong oxydizer, but it is very poisonous, so you should be very careful (I recommend wearing a gas mask when dealing with NO2).

-- Leocat 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if anyone can tell me what the volumetric change ratio is when wax goes through a phase change from its solid to liquid state? Noctroglyph 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

About ten to twenty percent [1] --Old Moonraker 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not according to the Smucker's website. Illinoisavonlady 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I changed units to SI units. Plese use only SI units. Those British-Amerivan ubits are not good choice for international use.

I couldn't find this anywhere? Does anyone know what it is? Turgonml 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what "the disks to be tested" refers to. Unfree (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed: not clear at all. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had bought a small oil lamp. The instructions said to use 'liquid paraffin'. Either this article, or the one on mineral oil said that mineral oil is liquid paraffin. Having mineral oil handy, I tried it. It did not work well, either with the glass fiber wick which came with the lamp, or with a fiber wick. It burned, but the flame was very low. When I tried lamp oil, the lamp worked 'as advertised'. Dnorm (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did the stuff mentioned here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBIH5LCmrmM

ever become a large scale option for cleaning up oil spills? Or did it fade away or prove to be more problematic than other methods? Just wondering if anyone knows.

--Hellahulla (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The referenced range given in the text refers to waxes with different carbon numbers. Temperatures below the quoted range are found, but only in impure wax with an admixture of oil (from: Nasser, William E (1999). "Waxes, Natural and Synthetic". In McKetta, John J (ed.). Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. Vol. 67. New York: Marcel Dekker. p. 17. ISBN 0-8247-2618-9.) It's wrong to give a lower temperature, as this only applies to impure mixtures of wax and oil, and I've been reverting it. The explanation is now in the footnote. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another reference work is not so dogmatic, allowing ≥36.4 °C. Added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll offer that identifying the melting point of an impure and highly variable material to the tenth of a degree is in itself a form of dogmatism! --kradak (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now it says "begins to melt above approximately 37 °C" in the introduction and "typical melting point between about 46 and 68 °C" in the body. Although strictly speaking it's consistent, it makes no sense. bungalo (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

example: http://www.micronal.de/portal/basf/ien/dt.jsp?setCursor=1_290798

I just edited out a qoute that C25H52 wax is used in these panels. It can't be, because C25H52 melts at 53° - 56°C (Reference: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.11900.html)

What kind of wax is used in these panels? JohnnyBatina (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC) After searching - if it's made from a single type of wax (not a mixture), its probably C17H36 - heptadecane http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.11892.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyBatina (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have heard that solid wax has its characteristic appearance because it is a polycrystal where each crystal is birefringant. Does that sound right? Any sources for that? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing in this article on how these paraffins are derived or how they are synthesized. 2602:306:C518:62C0:14F0:1BF1:7E93:9EB8 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I thought that paraffin is a synonym for alkane, if so we should merge the two articles. In my world, sometimes it refers to a particular kind of wax, in which case we might alert readers in the lead paragraph of alkane. Suggestions and comments are welcome. Maybe I am missing something.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The two articles do seem to be talking about the same thing, however I'm not sure if there's much content to merge. I also think that paraffin wax (as opposed to paraffin as a synonym of alkane) probably deserves its own article, and there's a reasonable amount of content about that here. I suggest the following: Merge any content to alkane; Make this article about the wax only; move this to Paraffin wax; and make Paraffin a disambiguation page pointing readers to Alkane, Paraffin wax, Liquid paraffin (medicinal), and Kerosene (which is known in my part of the world as paraffin). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. We could refocus this article onto paraffin wax. I was going to give this discussion another week or so. Thanks for the helpful suggestion. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm against this because paraffin warrants its own article. Although, it needs to be rewritten to focus more on paraffin than on alkanes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

No merger. I took the advice above and move the article to paraffin wax. I removed content about hydrocarbons in general, added an image of a typical waxy molecule, and expanded the language about disambiguation. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article should detail health effects. There's lots of pseudoscientific websites claiming it's deadly, though there seem to be some, probably a lot of papers (under a subscription service) that may say otherwise (1 2). All of this should be documented. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39308748
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/paraffin-based-skin-emollients-on-dressings-or-clothing-fire-risk
https://www.swyapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Paraffin-containing-skin-products-and-fire-risk-FINAL-24-3-17.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43009261/fire-tests-show-dangers-of-paraffin-based-skin-creams
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.52.82 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there any substitute for paraffin wax? Mopkielisha (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Parrafin wax is ubiquitous globally and yet this article is tiny. it contains barely any information on its health and safety, if its biodegradable, what concerns are involved, even its day to day use. just a long list of what its used in and some basic chemical background. when i search for info, all i find in articles is extremely niche oil-funded research papers (eg. "it biodegrades at 70 C in a crude oil pipe using this engineered bacteria strain" - great!) and completely useless copy-cat articles all saying the same things.

i dont know how to flag this but this definately needs a big rewrite! 84.66.216.95 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nobody appears to be looking after it, anyways. I can't see a single article in this talk page that has had a response in over 10 years. I wouldn't expect this to get a meaningful reply, just going on the history of this talk page.

I really hope I'm proven wrong on this. But, it's not the first such page I've seen.

I don't blame the staff, by any means. The problem is that according to the Wikipedians page Wikipedia:Wikipedians as of right now (May 19, 2024) there are 121,000 registered users who have made ANY contributions in the past 30 days. Anything from major edits to fixing a simple typo. Keeping track of the number over the last few months, it tends to hover between 100,000 and 150,000.

And there are 6,825,000 articles.

Assuming every one of those people is a significant contributor, which they wouldn't be, but just for simplicity's sake. The idea of having 125,000 or so people to look after 6,825,000 articles is a bit ambitious to say the least. Never mind addressing every issue brought up on the talk pages, which practically doubles their workload. It would be nice if we had more serious contributors. But realistically, we have to make due with what we get.

Personally, I think besides the occasional fundraiser, Wikipedia should have similar events where they try to drum up interest in becoming contributors in a similar way. Even if it only helps a little. Any bit helps. They could just explain the situation in numbers the way I have, and end it with a plea for more people to contribute.

I wish I could help more than just explaining the apparently dire situation with contributors. But that's part of the problem. People just don't have or don't want to take the time to learn how to edit in a more comprehensive manner than just changing the text on a page. Or if you need staff to do something for you, like add to a locked page. VoidHalo (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply