Talk:Tetraethyllead

Ozone

Why does this page not mention the impact of tetraethyl on the atmosphere, in particular the ozone layer? This seems a rather glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoney11 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any connection. Do you have a source? Also, you should move this comment to the bottom of the talk page so it will be seen. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

History

I noticed an error in the history section.

I worked for Ethyl Corp for 12 years.

Ethyl Corp was not formed by Dupont and General Motors. It was formed by General Motors and Standard Oil of New Jersey (ESSO). General Motors had the "use patent" for TEL as an antiknock, based on the work of Midgley and ESSO had the patent for the manufacture of TEL. Since the patents affected the marketing of TEL, General Motors and ESSO formed Ethyl Corp and each owner 50%. Since neither company had chemical plant experience, they hired Dupont to operate the manufacturing facilities. After patents ran out, Dupont started manufacture of TEL on their own and Ethyl started running their own operations. Some competition to those major producers came around 1960, but this was rather minor. --[User: Retired54) 8 June, 2007

Fuel economy

I did not find any proof that the addition of TEL improved fuel economy to the degree indicated. Sources?

Leaded gasoline is not as illegal as you might think. While I don't think leaded gas is sold at the (automobile) pump anymore, genuine tetra-ethyl lead is available as an additive quite legally (although expensively) for those running old cars. In addition, AVGAS contains lead. I suspect some racing fuel might. In the United Kingdom I understand leaded four-star is still available at some petrol stations.

Some racing fuel, at least in the U.S., does contain lead.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

110 octane rated leaded gasoline is available at the pump for off road vehicle use only- it isn't cheap as I purchased three gallons for my quad for $20.00. Haamerhed (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I own a car built for 100 octane leaded gas with a 10:1 compression ratio. It's a pain. Octane-boosting additives dont' work as well as advertised. --Morven 11:33, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

tetra-ethyl lead is available -- This article uses the terms "phase-out" and "ban" many times so as to create the false impression their is no tetraethyl lead anymore. Only if you read the small section about avgas do you notice that the article contains this contradiction. As for fuel economy I have not looked for a source but if you increase the power of a fuel it should take less to do the same amount of work. Breedentials (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed this in a couple places to try to make this more clear. As for fuel economy, petrol plus TEL contains the same amount of energy as plain petrol, maybe slightly less. The improvement in economy would come from the higher compression ratio, presumably giving a higher thermal efficiency, but I don't have a source for this either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@68.231.184.217: Tetraethyllead does not improve fuel economy by itself. It only allows higher compression ratios to be used, and that improves fuel economy. (Even today, people should not buy high-octane fuel if their cars don't ping on the lower octane fuel.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is wrong; ("Even today, people should not buy high-octane fuel if their cars don't ping on the lower octane fuel" User:Eric Kvaalen.) One should buy the fuel specified as recommended or required in the OWNER'S MANUAL. BrianAlex (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity / affect on IQ

I am deleting the following until there is a citation or other backup: "Some neurologists have speculated that the lead phaseout may have caused average IQ levels to rise by several points in the United States (by reducing cumulative brain damage throughout the population, especially in the young)." If someone can back it up, then by all means move it back. But until it's backed up, it actually weakens the article to insert excited statements like this without a citation.

how about this:

Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):894-9.

Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an international pooled analysis.

Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, Yolton K, Baghurst P, Bellinger DC, Canfield RL, Dietrich KN, Bornschein R, Greene T, Rothenberg SJ, Needleman HL, Schnaas L, Wasserman G, Graziano J, Roberts R.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA. bruce.lamphear@cchmc.org

Lead is a confirmed neurotoxin, but questions remain about lead-associated intellectual deficits at blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL and whether lower exposures are, for a given change in exposure, associated with greater deficits. The objective of this study was to examine the association of intelligence test scores and blood lead concentration, especially for children who had maximal measured blood lead levels < 10 microg/dL. We examined data collected from 1,333 children who participated in seven international population-based longitudinal cohort studies, followed from birth or infancy until 5-10 years of age. The full-scale IQ score was the primary outcome measure. The geometric mean blood lead concentration of the children peaked at 17.8 microg/dL and declined to 9.4 microg/dL by 5-7 years of age; 244 (18%) children had a maximal blood lead concentration < 10 microg/dL, and 103 (8%) had a maximal blood lead concentration < 7.5 microg/dL. After adjustment for covariates, we found an inverse relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ score. Using a log-linear model, we found a 6.9 IQ point decrement [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.2-9.4] associated with an increase in concurrent blood lead levels from 2.4 to 30 microg/dL. The estimated IQ point decrements associated with an increase in blood lead from 2.4 to 10 microg/dL, 10 to 20 microg/dL, and 20 to 30 microg/dL were 3.9 (95% CI, 2.4-5.3), 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6), and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), respectively. For a given increase in blood lead, the lead-associated intellectual decrement for children with a maximal blood lead level < 7.5 microg/dL was significantly greater than that observed for those with a maximal blood lead level > or = 7.5 microg/dL (p = 0.015). We conclude that environmental lead exposure in children who have maximal blood lead levels < 7.5 microg/dL is associated with intellectual deficits.

PMID: 16002379 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Can't see where to insert this comment, so putting it here. It's sted ' In Europe, Professor Derek Bryce-Smith was among the first to highlight the potential dangers of TEL and became a leading campaigner for removal of lead additives from petrol' yet the UK is not on the list of countries with dates when it was removed from petrol. Derek Bryce-Smith was British by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.227.141 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

untapped resources?

http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/#myths

This page has a lot about tetra-ethyl lead (the link jumps directly to the section Ten Myths About Leaded Gasoline).

At the very top of that page there is a link to another resource: http://www.radford.edu/%7ewkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf

Link above no longer works. This journal article can be found at [1], and an archived copy is at [2].

This is a rather damning piece by William Kovarik about the role of industries in the whole tetra-ethyl lead thing.

134.173.57.118 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

The synthesis section states that TEL is produced by reactive a sodium-lead alloy with ethyl chloride. However, the formula given (4 NaPb + 4 CH3CH2Cl →...) implies the existence of a sodium lead compound (NaPb). Could someone check the reference given, and possibly explain how sodium and lead form a simple 1:1 compound? I'd expect to find oxygen in there too.--Rossheth | Talk to me 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Remind us why Na and Pb are not supposed to make an alloy or a compound? Looks fine to me. There is no oxygen in this material, in fact oxygen would poison the material. One lead is Zintl phase.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So it is a compund, not an alloy? I'll change the article then.--Rossheth | Talk to me 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not unusual to denote stoichiometry in alloys with notation like NaPb or Na₄Pb. (It is not a compound, like GaAs, for example.) The notation "Na/Pb" would not indicate the 1:1 stoichiometry. Read the reference, the article is really amazing. They tried practically every other possible way to synthesize TEL, without success, before it was banned. --Vuo (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Engine knock

Explanation of engine knock is erroneous. Engine knock actually takes place during compression and ignition, rather than during the exhaust stroke. Refer to the wiki on ENGINE KNOCK. 198.190.156.119 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Organometallics article very specifically states that the uncontrolled ignition, or engine knock, was a problem during the exhaust stroke in Midgley's engine. Either the Organometallics author misunderstood something or then it was really during exhaust stroke. I don't doubt that preignition could also be a problem. --Vuo (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Organometallics author misunderstood something fundamental about how a 4-stroke engine operates. The only phase during which knock can occur is when both of the valves (intake and exhaust) are closed and the piston is at or approaching Top Dead Centre. If an intake valve is open when the fuel charge spontaneously ignites, we get a backfire or spitback. If an exhaust valve is open when the fuel charge spontaneously ignites, we get an exhaust tract explosion. Neither is at all similar to knock, which occurs only in a completely enclosed cylinder. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The use of the hyphen in "Tetra-ethyl lead" seems awkward here, especially as the article title. As noted in this article, IUPAC does not use the hyphen (although I do not recommend their "tetraethyllead" here). The most natural nomenclature for this compound in this context would be "tetraethyl lead". Within the current vs. of the article there are at least five (5) inconsistencies in naming the titled compound, including a section heading. Primary sources cited in this article also use the suggested nomenclature. The American Chemical Society, a very influential and large publisher, does not recommend the use of hyphenated prefixes such as "tetra-", as is seen here. So I would suggest that the Wiki article title be recast to reflect a more commom usage, esp. as this compound was created and promoted right here in the USA.Jack B108 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a tool of the USA! Second, the A.C.S. is neither ignored nor obeyed here. Now, with regards to the title: good point and Wikipedia struggles with nomenclature. Titles arise for reasons of accessibility, legacy (who created the article), the rules (IUPAC), and idiosyncratic aspects of the computer code.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am not picking up strong opposition to moving (renaming) the page to "Tetraethyl lead". I propose to do this in a few days. Thanks for your input, Smokefoot.Jack B108 (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)\

Wow, that was impolite, Rifleman 82. You renamed the entire page, a major change for which you made no notice whatsoever and made no attempt to even gather an opinion. In addition, the article content is now inconsistent with the new title of "tetraethyllead". You are using nomenclature that is not that of the country of origin of the compound or of the original manufacturer. I would urge you to revert these changes ASAP. Jack B108 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it you (Jack) who gave notice in your last post; I'm certain that the introductory post of this section attempts to gather an opinion. What do you mean by: "...the article content is now inconsistent with the new title of 'tetraethyllead'"? What do you mean by: "...nomenclature that is not that of the country of origin of the compound or of the original manufacturer." This statement is akin to trademarking water, just because you find a novel way to produce it, doesn't mean that every one has to call it by whatever name you give it, be it burnt hydrogen or something. Besides, the name change is nearly the same as your proposed name change, albeit with a space removed between lead and tetraethyl. Tetraethyllead is an additively constructed IUPAC name and tetraethylplumbane is a substitutively constructed IUPAC name. The latter is the PIN as it takes precedence according to the decision table, which can also be found on IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. So the name change is technically correct as both of these names are acceptable varients of the same thing. I support Rifleman on his decision on the page move.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "tetraethyllead" over the alternatives. It's consistent with many of our other articles on similar substances, for example butyllithium, phenylmagnesium bromide, dimethylmercury, diethylzinc, triethylaluminium, tributyltin, hexamethyltungsten, and so on.

Ben (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminding me about the inconsistencies; I have since fixed them. The previous article title was just weird and inconsistent with chemical nomenclature; a lengthy debate is not required. With regard to the two possibilities, "tetraethyllead" and "tetraethyl lead", as an complex, there should be no space between the ligands and the metal. Once again, I don't see the need for a lengthy debate or poll. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the simple utility for renaming this page no longer works for me (apparently as both "tetraethyl lead" and "tetraethyllead" pages now exist), I am going to request that an administrator restore it to "tetraethyl lead", or the original and yes, awkward hyphenated form of that appellation. Getting rid of the hyphen was an improvement. However, WP:MOVE policy guidelines and just plain common courtesy were violated. Rifleman 82 was not just made the boss of this page: this is Wikipedia. At least there is article consistency now, apparently, now, judging from the edit history. Jack B108 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is your right to request a move and all. Let's see how it plays out then. As a technical writer in the field of chemistry, I expect that you would be familiar with the current nomenclature. I'm just reading the two essays by Dietmar Seyferth in OM (2003, doi: 10.1021/om030245v & doi: 10.1021/om030621b), and surprise surprise, Seyferth doesn't use the incorrect form of the name. I'm totally unapologetic about the move, since I fixed an embarrassing mistake in its name, and was in accordance with an accepted naming convention. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since nomenclature requires certain contextual knowledge, I've pointed out this discussion at WT:CHEMICALS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Tetraethyllead, as per Ben, and thus I too think the article is now at the correct place. Chris (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to call it tetraethyllead (all one word) please can someone add a reference for this being correct. The IUPAC is tetraethylplumbane so surely that should be the primary title? I would personally (UK) say lead tetraethyl or tetraethyl lead. 2A00:23C4:15B7:EB01:A008:6D8C:EFAC:7CA3 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Britannica has 'tetraethyl lead'; Oxford reference has 'lead(IV) tetraethyl (tetraethyl lead)'; Merriam Webster 'tetraethyl lead'.

Are they really all wrong? 2A00:23C4:15B7:EB01:A008:6D8C:EFAC:7CA3 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tetraethyllead → Tetraethyl lead — On June 25, the page "Tetra-ethyl lead" was abruptly renamed, a major change. The new name is not the common name and is also inconsistent with the name used in other WP articles, such as Ethyl Corporation and Thomas Midgely. Jack B108 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Of all the possible spellings (and names: lead tetraethyl has also been used, and tetraethylplumbane is correct but nobody uses it), we should go with the one which confirms to the rules of chemical nomenclature, that is tetraethyllead. Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Although not ideal, removing the space is an improvement. The ideal title would be the PIN, which is tetraethylplumbane. I don't expect PINs to be used by wikipedia, so tetraethyllead is the best that I should expect.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

PINs don't exist yet, but it's a fair bet that the PIN will be tetraethylplumbane when the final rules are published. And no, nobody (not even IUPAC) expects Wikipedia to use PINs for article titles (although we will list them in the infoboxes when they're finalized). Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per discussion above. Chris (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It does not matter that much. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia does not use chemical nomenclature to determine page titles, but uses the most common term encountered in English prose, as set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). That is difficult to determine by a Google search, as Google fails to detect the word break. However, a quick look at the Google results indicates that Tetraethyl lead has a clear lead, even discounting Wikipedia mirrors. Incidentally, the majority of the links from the article use tetraethyl lead: only the American links use tetraethyllead. Is this a national varieties of English thing, in which case the page should revert to whatever version it was originally written in? Skinsmoke (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence from WP:NCCHEM is "Some articles on Wikipedia have non-standard titles through consensus that this is the most commonly used name (in scientific circumstances) for the compound concerned, whatever IUPAC or the other rules suggest." Note the concepts of "some articles" and "consensus". I don't think this is a UK/US difference, although it might be a difference between industrial and academic usage. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the world's most popular and acccesible encyclopedia. It isn't the journal of Organometallics or other journal meant for experts, it is a place where someone with an eighth grade education can look up something, say "tetraethyl lead", and learn about it. If WP doesn't hold firm and publish entries by their common name, then IMHO it is not doing its readers a service. I think it is quite clear that "tetraethyl lead" (or the "tetra-ethyl" variant) is the common name in use around the world, and I haven't heard one person here dispute that claim. As it should, WP most generally publishes entries by the common name, and I firmly believe we should continue to do so here. I might add that the vs. I am arguing for is the one the Webster's College dictionary, used by the AP, ACS Publications (LOL), etc., uses to index this compound. This is an important entry for the general use of the public. Jack B108 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If some eighth-grader types in tetraethyl lead or tetra-ethyl lead, they will find our article! If someone wants to use those spellings in another article and links to them, the links will work. There's simply no point in not having the article at the correctly spelt name, given that other versions are so very close. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with PC. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap after all. If it were some complicated molecule with a complicated name, such as trans-chlorocarbonylbis(triphenylphosphine)iridium(I), I would agree that the common name, Vaska's complex, should be used. Similarly for complexes whose non-systematic names are established. However, in this case, the systematic name and the alternative are only separated by a space. That being the case, the choice is clear that we should take the systematic name. See our example of n-butyllithium. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I really doubt that ACS uses a dictionary to index compounds, unless I am misunderstanding your comments. CAS indexes this compound as follows:

Substance Details

CAS Registry Number: 78-00-2

CA Index Name: Plumbane, tetraethyl-

http://www.commonchemistry.org/ChemicalDetail.aspx?ref=78-00-2

While WP should try to use common terms wherever possible, we should also avoid sloppy nomenclature even if it's common. For example, salt nomenclature: dimethyl sulfoxide vs. dimethylsulfoxide? Do note that even suppliers get it wrong. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In the Corpus of Contemporary American English there are 11 occurrences of tetraethyl lead, 1 of tetra-ethyl lead and 0 of tetraethyllead. If we used the rules of chemical nomenclature to decide article titles, we'd have hydrogen oxide. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no we wouldn't, the correct parent hydride name is oxidane... but facetious examples aside, this is not a question of WP:COMMONNAME, it is a question of spelling. Nobody is suggesting moving Aspirin to 2-acetyloxybenzoic acid, after all. Just as misspelt dimethylsulfoxide is a redirect to the correct dimethyl sulfoxide, then the misspelt tetraethyl lead is a redirect to the correct tetraethyllead. Are you really suggesting that our readers cannot tell that they refer to the same thing? Or maybe you think we should mollycoddle our readers in their comfort zone of ignorance rather than supplying them with information. Physchim62 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling of an English word is the one native English speakers use except for typos and other unintentional mistakes, by definition, even when that doesn't comply with a systematic scheme (e.g. the past of pay is not spelt payed). That all of the eleven occurrences on the COCA (and all of the about 7,950 hits on Google Scholar[3]) were typos which somehow survived copy editing, or mistakes by someone who didn't know the spelling and guessed, is quite implausible. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll remember that one, next time some random physicist complains that I am spelling "relative atomic mass" wrongly as "atomic weight"! As for "mistakes by someone who didn't know the spelling and guessed" being "quite implausible", it is, unfortunately, quite plausible: "well, they wouldn't put a double ell there, would they..." Physchim62 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support the common name as well - the lack of the space seems jarring and will likely be annoying to readers, plus Google Scholar shows over twice as many uses of the spaced version. But a question: you mention that "dimethylsulfoxide" is a misspelling of "dimethyl sulfoxide", while on the other hand we have this case where in the correct spelling there is no space. Is there a rhyme or reason to these chemical spellings and spaces? I'm more inclined to retain "tetraethyllead" if it is based on moving towards some rational consideration. II | (t - c) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Common nomenclature types

	without spaces	with spaces
organic	substitutive	functional class
inorganic	additive	compositional

(Reply to II)

The short answer is that the presence or absence of spaces is one indicator of the type of chemical nomenclature being used. There are four major types of nomenclature, as shown in the table to the right. "Dimethyl sulfoxide" is an example of a functional class name; "dimethylsulfoxide" (without the space) would be a substitutive name, except that it can't be, because there is no neutral parent compound called "sulfoxide" which can be substituted (the preferred substitutive name is "methanesulfonylmethane", although "dimethyl-λ⁴-sulfanone" is also possible).

"Tetraethyl lead" (with a space) must be either a functional class name (organic) or a compositional name (inorganic: an example of a compositional name is "sodium chloride"). It can't be a functional class name, because there is no functional class called "lead", so it must be a compositional name. Now the use of compositional names for organometallic compounds is almost obsolete, except for a few common exceptions such as nickel tetracarbonyl or tributyltin hydride, but there's an even bigger problem here: the compositional name is the wrong way round! The correct compositional name would be "lead tetraethyl", with the more metallic component given first: "tetraethyl lead" is about as correct a compositional name as "chloride sodium"!

The solution is simple: if you take out the space, then abracadabra (in this case) it magically becomes a correct additive name, "tetraethyllead". And additive nomenclature is the normal method of naming organometallic compounds (see International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. pp. 111–14. Electronic version.), in real life as well as on Wikipedia (see Ben's examples above). You can construct a substitutive name for the same compound: it's "tetraethylplumbane", and that's what Chemical Abstracts does, and what IUPAC would prefer everyone to do (but most people don't). WP:COMMONNAME requires that we choose "tetraethyllead" over "tetraethylplumbane", but it doesn't require that we use an incorrect name for an article about a chemical compound when the correct name is so very similar: it is really no different from having an article at Antonín Dvořák instead of Antonin Dvorak. Physchim62 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That one person misspells a name by mistake is not implausible, but that 7,950 not only do that but manage to get the article published in a journal indicized by Google Scholar without anyone ever spotting the typo until the publication is much less likely. The "atomic mass" vs "atomic weight" thing is about historical vs modern usage, but "tetraethyl lead" gives more Google Scholar hits than "tetraethyllead" by a factor of 7 even if I restrict the search to articles published since 2009. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 08:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of people who use "atomic mass" when they mean "atomic weight" (and, occasionally, vice versa), it doesn't surprise me at all: you yourself seem unaware that they refer to different concepts (for all but 20 mononuclidic elements). I like to point out this nomenclature error (it should be "nickelate", not "niccolate"), because the lead author of the article is a distinguished member of the IUPAC commission on inorganic nomenclature (he was at the time of the paper, and he still is 20 years later), and so really should have known better. Physchim62 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say that's implausible that one person makes one typo which passes unnoticed; what's implausible is that several thousand people do that, whereas only few hundred people which use the "correct" spelling. If in the literature niccolate were more frequent than nickelate by over an order of magnitude, that would mean that niccolate is the correct spelling despite the systematics, much like it's sulfate and not sulfurate, phosphate not phosphorate, etc. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Going by salt nomenclature, where "dimethyl" is the "cation" and "sulfoxide" is the anion, the two parts should be distinct. Same as methyl chloride, not methylchloride. As to why suppliers get it wrong, many suppliers are German, or supply to Germany. In their language, many fewer spaces are used, e.g. de:dimethylsulfoxid or de:methylchlorid. Perhaps that's the reason for all those misspellings.

In chemistry, especially inorganic and organometallic chemistry, there should not be a space between the ligands and the metal. Regardless of whether or not the metal fragment is anionic, cationic, or neutral. Indeed, a space is used to separate the cationic and anionic fragments of the compound - which is obviously not the case here. Tetraethyllead is the complete, neutral fragment; it is not a "cationic" tetraethyl fragment, with an anionic lead fragment.

There are other naming rules and conventions, but this is sufficient for our discussion. See the IUPAC recommendations 1999 for OM, especially the first three pages. PC is the expert with regard to nomenclature hereabouts.

In our case here, I am not asking that brandnames, proper names, etc. be replaced with a systematic name. I am asking that a poorly constructed systematic name be corrected. Once again, I draw everyone's attention to Ben's examples of correctly named compounds:

I prefer "tetraethyllead" over the alternatives. It's consistent with many of our other articles on similar substances, for example butyllithium, phenylmagnesium bromide, dimethylmercury, diethylzinc, triethylaluminium, tributyltin, hexamethyltungsten, and so on.

Why should this compound be named differently? Just because the original author or manufacturer named it so? Then where is the progress and harmonization of chemical nomenclature? We will still be calling oxygen "dephlogisticated air". --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the latest draft recommendations for preferred IUPAC names use tetraethyllead as an example of additive, coordination-type name. See page 361. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether a naming convention exists, it's whether it has stuck in the real world. We don't call 1 fm one femtometre because that's what you get by following the SI rules; we call it one fermi because it's how everyone else calls it. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Do they? I've never used the term "fermi" in my life to refer to a femtometre... Physchim62 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Procedural issue note on outcome of the page name change issue: Someone comes along, obviously having little concern what other opinions might be regarding this entry, and renames the page. Technically (to my limited knowledge), this edit can't simply be reverted by a regular user (like it can be with other edits). Then someone else (me) complains, and we have a "debate". WP admin, don't you think the playing field for the debate was set up unfairly? This page name should have immediately been reverted to its original name B4 the major change with no notice or discussion, and then the debate should have occurred over that move. I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but it would have been a lot more on the "up and up". I would note that it is the general policy of WP to use common names for article indexing. Now we no longer have the common name, not even close, and this entry is now inconsistent with the other linked WP entries (T. Midgley and Ethyl Corp., to start). Bad editing and form, IMHO. Jack B108 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to my above comments: FROM WP:COMMONNAME, Names should be Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.) Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles. Or this gem, Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. If WP spends the time to post these policies, and editors don't follow then, admins don't enforce them, then what's the point?

Jack B108 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --Thnidu (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity section sentence and ref

I went to this current TEL article reference (ref 6 today),

"Blood Lead Levels in Young Children--United States and Selected States, 1996--1999 (2000). (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved on 8-17-2009." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4950a3.htm#tab1

scanned it, and found little reason to support the formation of this statement from the study:

"In a 2000 U.S. study, the highest blood lead levels were about 27 μg/dL (county averages)."

Unless I have read the CDC report wrongly, I would suggest the sentence and reference be removed, as the sentence appears to have erroneous information in it (27 micrograms/deciliter??? No, it is 27 percent (%) for highest county percentage, from Figure 1).Jack B108 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Used as Octane Booster?

It is incorrect to say alcohol absorbs water from the air; "causing fuel system corrosion". Unless very saturated with water, alcohol forms a miscible azeotrope with it. It can then pass freely thru the fuel system, not impeding flow. Fuel drying agents contain Methanol for that exact purpose.

Also, what Is the octane rating of Tetraethyl Lead? I assume it can't be burned directly, like iso-octane, but can't the percentages used to raise octane be extrapolated to calculate this?68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask again in WP:Reference desk/Science Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if "alcohol" causes corrosion, either directly or indirectly, in a fuel system. Whether (methyl) alcohol and water are miscible (they are) has virtually nothing to do with whether an alcohol-water mixture is corrosive - and even less to do with whether an alcohol-water-fuel mixture is corrosive. Miscibility is, by definition a property of two (or more) compounds to be soluble in one another in all proportions (that is from →zero to →100%). IOW "Miscible azeotrope" is meaningless. Finally, Lead burns. TEL burns. What temperature is required for self-supporting combustion, IDK. (And, I admit it's unlikely that TEL could be used, neat, in an internal combustion engine as fuel.) All this is to say the above comments are worse than wrong.98.21.68.176 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Africa

This article states that leaded gas is still available in Algeria, yet is totally banned continent-wide in Africa. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.172.40 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressed. Thanks for pointing it out. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite gone in Algeria yet, supposed to be soon.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/africa-adopts-continent-wide-sustainable-transport-agenda 67.249.140.141 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad this article is a mass mess of contradictory claims. I don't know and don't really care too much if TEL is still being used as an anti-knock agent. I'd guess that unless all (Internal Combustion) engines that need it are banned, that it is being used. (It's also pretty simple to make.) TEL isn't just used in gasoline, but that widely used substance was the main vector for it contaminating the Earth's surface and waters. The article needs to be rewritten and contradictions removed. It seems nobody cares enough to bother, I know I don't.98.21.68.176 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Valve seat or seal

This edit changed the word "seat" to "seal." Is this correct, given that the item in question is commonly known as a valve seat? SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done on 01:53, 12 June 2013 by anonymous. 75.208.167.64 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lung cancer

There are several problems here. One is the the lead, or opening section, summarizes the body of the article. So the lung cancer would go in the body first, then if it seems important enough, would be summarized in the lead. Second, your source says the "EPA has determined that lead is a probable cancer-causing agent." It doesn't mention lung cancer in connection to Tetraethyllead. It also attributes this to EPA, which we would also need to do. Finally, your ref wasn't properly formatted, but I'd be happy to fix that for you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethanol

I don't see any reason to mention ethanol in the intro, so I moved it. If it does need to be mentioned in the intro, we need to get our story straight in the body, then summarize it in the intro. Right now it almost looks like we're contradicting ourselves ("corrosive to the steel"? unspecified "commercial reasons"?). Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Carcinogen

Please discuss here before adding information about TEL being a carcinogen. The source being cited does not even mention TEL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unleaded vs Regular

I took out the part about "When both leaded and unleaded fuels were available at a given service station, the unleaded type was commonly labeled as 'regular' in the US and 'unleaded' elsewhere." This is not true. In the US, the choices were "Regular" (leaded) and "Unleaded". You can see the choice of fuel types in this photo from 1972: [4] Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tetraethyllead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505193757/http://www.osd.org.tr/14.pdf to http://www.osd.org.tr/14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708163208/http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html to http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

leaded fuel is not banned in norway

it have never been illegal in norway. it have however lost popularity and very few places sells it these days. i heard that they were going to make cars that uses leaded fuel more expensive to own. i never heard of a ban and i have lived in norway since before the date that is listed. the sentence about leaded fuel being banned in norway should therefore be removed as it is not true.84.212.111.156 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tetraethyl lead

The suggestion that tetraethyl lead was adopted because it was more profitable then ethanol is a rather biassed view. At that time , the USA didn't produce enough grain to make sufficient alcohol to act as an anti knock additive for gasoline. Alcohol has to be added in large quantity to effectively raise the octane rating of gasoline. Tetraethyl lead is added in very small quantities and, at the time, was the best option. At the time everyone knew that alcohol was effective as an anti-knock agent. Anyone could have used it but they didn't because the fuel consumption would rise dramatically as alcohol has a lower calorific value than gasoline. There were great protests about the toxicity at the time, but it came into use and not many died, to protests declined. Latterly toxicity was again raised as an issue and better gasoline formulations were derived that overcame the need to use lead.

It does seem to be a claim that needs better sourcing (the current source is an article in a political publication that is presenting one particular point of view), so I have removed the claim for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Patent motivations

The current source for the statement "TEL offered the business advantage of being commercially profitable because its use for this purpose could be patented." is quite poor. It mentions "patent" only once in the body text, and it's a reference to the patent text predicting future changes in anti-knock approaches. This article from the Organometallics journal appears to be a much better source, as it extensively covers the activity around the patents. However, I don't know the best way to make this change; citations have changed a lot since I last edited frequently. davidstrauss (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Phase Out sections / possible merge.

There are 2 sections within this article mentioning 'phase-out' with a potential doubling up of information within this article.

I was considering doing a CE and merging the sections 'Phase out and ban" and "Controversy and phase out".

Any thoughts on this proposal?

Textualism (talk | contribs) 13:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Chemical agents

It looks like, this has got the "Chemical agents" category or whatever you'd call it on it, which appears to be a list of chemical warfare agents, but there's no mention in the main text of the article of it ever having been used as a chemical weapon and from a quick Web search I can't find any mention of it ever having been used as one - maybe someone misread what the "Chemical agents" category was for. Wombat140 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Awful article

This article contains a series of contradictions. It's bad, really bad. The toxicity section claims 6 ml of TEL is "enough to induce severe lead poisoning". I'm not sure if its more laughable or pathetic. First of all, while it's reasonable to assume the claim refers to humans, I'm betting 6 ml injected into the brain of a 1 day old infant would have significantly different results than 6 ml delivered via a rectal suppository to a 200 pound adult. What do you think, is route of administration important? Hey, how about this: why not pretend to try to conform to the standards of toxicology? Species, route, dose PER KILOGRAM for a start. 98.21.68.176 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)