Talk:Polyethylene glycol

Picture

The picture of polyethylene glycol is wrong. (it is not an ether, but a diol) Also the drawing would imply that n=0 is ethylene glycol, whereas it is simply water

hello does anyone have the hybridizations for Maleimide-Polyethylene glycol?

Should there be a mention of Regalskeppet Vasa and Mary Rose, two ships that were conservated with PG. Scoo 11:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some clarification would help. Ethylene glycol (HO-CH2-CH2-OH) is a diol. A condensation reaction between two molecules gives: HO-CH2-CH2-OH + HO-CH2-CH2-OH => HO-CH2-CH2-O-CH2-CH2-OH +H2O, an ether-linked bimer. PEG is produced by repeating this process, producing a polyether (as stated in the introduction). The drawing is correct for n≥1 (other than a vertical flip of the 2D links betwen odd and even n) with n=1 for ethylene glycol. FredV (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, that chemical structure in the picture to the right looks wrong. It looks to be missing a terminal -OH group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.233.233 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's fine, see there. Although I personally think this one is clearer. It's is both simpler (emphasizes the monomer), and the n-subscript is better placed. --Belg4mit 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you check the Braintree website regarding HalfLyetly and (their spelling not mine) polyethylene glycol - http://www.halflytely.com/cons/index.html - They don't suggest usage of the product if the person has known allergies to polyethylene glycol. I called and them asked them if their product has plastic in it. You should call them too; you might be surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingshores (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be the surprise? Do you mean that you were surprised that this chemical is a plastic? Or that people could be allergic to it? David Spector (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no polyethylene in "polyethylene glycol" or "polyethylene oxide"

The article title contains a common misspelling of poly(ethylene glycol) and also of poly(ethylene oxide).

The structure shown looks like ethoxypoly(ethylene glycol) or ethoxypoly(ethylene oxide), not PEG or PEO, each of which are diols (dialcohols).

See above --Belg4mit 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The structure that was inseted is not correct -- it has two extra carbon atoms -- and is not consistent with the structural formula that was inserted (nor with the correct one that is now there (9/4/06)). The second structure that belg4mit posted is correct. Can it be inserted?

In the discussion of PEGylation of therapeutic proteins, it would be more correct to speak of methoxypoly(ethylene glycol) or "mPEG," since that is what is used in all of the products named, to which could be added mPEG-adenosine deaminase (for treatment of severe combined immunodeficiency disease = SCID), mPEG-asparaginase (for treatment of certain hematologic malignancies) and mPEG-growth hormone antagonist (for treatment of acromegaly). mPEG-uricase is in Phase 3 clinical testing in patients with "treatment-failure gout."

What is the molecular mechanism of action of polyethylene glycol by which it causes the fusison of two diploid cells.

• I agree that this structure is better and, in fact is consistent with the structural formula in Merck 13, 7651: H(OCH₂CH₂)_nOH where n >/= 4. In addition, the question of "polyethylene glycol" vs. "poly(ethylene glycol)" is really splitting hairs as it is understood that "polyethyleneglycol" is "poly(ethylene glycol)" by convention. In addition, Merck 13, 7651 lists it as "polyethylene glycol" lending a large amount of credibility to the name w/o the parentheses. Finally, polyoxyethylene needs to be explained here as it is commonly used in industry, e.g. Uniqema.--Vargob 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree that the simpler structure is the preferred one. But as to the naming: while it is very good to point out all the various variations for historical reasons at a minimum, current usage should favor the use of the parentheses, since this is the more accurate and modern convention. And I agree that we need to have poly(oxyethylene) included, in order to clarify the otherwise confusing POE acronym. Hughesdavidw (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PEG versus PEO

There is no justification for separating these two names into separate pages, since they are not chemically distinct. The distinction served the commercial purposes of certain manufacturers (especially the now defunct Union Carbide Corporation), but has no basis in chemistry. The definition of PEG as a liquid and PEO as a solid is simply wrong.

Also, "Its melting point is around 68 degree Celsius." is inconsistent with the espoused notion that "PEG" is a liquid, which is simply incorrect.

Note that all of the PEGylated therapeutic proteins that are listed are made with "PEG" (really mPEG) with molecular weights above 5 kilodaltons, all of which are solids -- yet they are not called PEO in the article!

I agree. Oppose split. —Keenan Pepper 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The article now (9/4/06) has rejoined PEO and PEG, as correctly defined.

PEG versus POE

Various surfactants are designated by the number of moles of ethylene oxide that were used to create them. For example, surfactant ETHOX TDA-9 is descibed by its manufacturer (Ethox Chemicals) as tridecyl alcohol POE 9. Is POE the same as PEO? I had thought POE was an acronym for polyoxyethylene. Conversely, other surfactants may be described by the letters PEG followed by a number. For example ETHSORBOX PSML-80 is described by its manufacturer (again Ethox Chemicals) as PEG-80 sorbitan laurate. Is that substance identicle to T-MAZ 28, which is described by its manufacturer (BASF) as sorbitan monolaurate POE 80? If anyone can clarify this terminology, then it might be a good idea to further explain it in the article. Surfactants are one of the major uses of polyethylene glycol. Is it a reagent (like ethylene oxide) in the manufacture of surfactants, or is it simpy a miscible ingredient that is blended in? --Zymatik 05:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a difference and think it should be added... The manufacturer of Tween, ICI refers to them as POE, not PEO or PEG. Additionally, this needs to be tied into polyoxyethylene so it makes more sense specifically because of the confusion. --Vargob 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Different PEGs

Might somebody be able to explain the different PEGs that are available such as PEG 200, PEG 300, PEG 400 and PEG 600 and others?

These are classes of polymerized PEG by molecular weight (PEG 400 would be n~5). Just as in the alkanes, the heavier PEGs are higher viscosity/melting point. --Belg4mit 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Might you or somebody be willing to add this information to the main article? Do the different PEGs have longer chains off of a core molecule? --Iambk 00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeat structure is WRONG

Toxicity

This may start a controversy but I have changed it's status from 'non-toxic' to 'sightly toxic'. My gastroenterologist wants me to take Miralax for a year or more, but my nauturalpath says it's liver and kidney toxic, and a possible mutagen. After all, if it reacts can't ethelyene glycol molecules break off the ends? That's antifreeze folks and it's toxic. Small amounts won't kill you, or even cause much harm because I believe it gets metablolized like alcohol does, but has anybody done a long-term study on this? The OTC directions says use no more the 7 days. I don't have any problem using it as needed, but more research needs to be done on this to truly call it "non-toxic". -Stillwaterising 10:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PEG is GRAS; and I agree, the structure looks wrong or at least misleading 69.107.115.52 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ion binding?

Just for curiousness, does anybody know something about ion binding to PEG? The structure is similar to crown ethers, though PEG should form a random coil.

From experience I know that various "capped" versions of PEG (e.g., triethylene glycol dimethyl ether ether, also known as "triglyme") are useful for improving solubility and reactivity of various sodium and potassium salts in organic solvents, in a manner similar to crown ethers. The crown ethers are much more effective, for the reason you note (they are already held in the proper orientation to favor binding with these cations), though a lot more expensive as a rule. Hughesdavidw (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Polyethylene Glycol eye drops

Blink Tears main ingredient is Polyethylene Glycol 400. Any information as to the effectiveness or benefits as compared to alternative eye drops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.120.29 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

the brand names should go higher

i think it should be easier to find the brand names in this article. when people want to look up golytely and see if it is the same as miralax - it is hard to do with the current format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistence Length and Kuhn Length

Knows someone the persistence length and the the Kuhn length of PEG/PEO? Darnokdd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

persistence length=3.8 nm +/-0.02 Kienberger et al. 2000 Single mol. 1(2) 123-128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's 3.8 Angstroms, not nanometer. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1438-5171(200006)1:2%3C123::AID-SIMO123%3E3.0.CO;2-3/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.63.165 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Need photo of the actual chemical.

Is Triethylene glycol a PEG ?

It's not clear what the least n in the formula is considered a PEG. 4?

• Triethylene glycol has n=3 - nontoxic?
• Diethylene glycol n=2 - toxic
• ethylene glycol n=1 - slightly toxic.

I see oligomer says it includes even dimers. Presumably the GRAS for PEG specifies a minimum length or weight ? Rod57 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Questioning toxicity from PEG when applied in damaged skin

Well this surely must be wrong or multi billion dollar pharmaceutical companies are in serious trouble. I quote the sentence in question from the main article which seems wrong from my point of view:

"PEGs contain potential toxic impurities such as ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane. PEGs are nephrotoxic if applied to damaged skin.[4]"

1st) The reference for this part DOES NOT EXIST.

2nd) PEG is used as the main and only carrier for povidone iodine ointment in the pharmaceutical product marketed under the brand name "Betadine". I am sure that most people are familiar with this multi million dollar selling product which is applied in damaged skin for its excellent antiseptic properties. If the quoted sentence above is anywhere near the truth then everyone using Betadine ointment is in serious risk.

I can imagine that big companies are a little more smarter than that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blokatos (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, here is a source talking about the dangers of PEGs in cosmetics, "big companies" don't care if it recks your health, as long as they're making money. David Suzuki foundation98.143.209.167 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC) egelinizzle@gmail.com

References

Section "Medical uses"

Section name might be better "As Laxative." Also, section needs an explanation of the mechanism of action when used as a laxative drug. David Spector (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make it easier to read without deleting any info. The first sentence and the text relating to use in cosmetics should be relocated. When time permits and if someone else has not fixed it I will try to take care of that.1archie99 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not merged. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

---

PEG-150 Jojoba, PEG-120 Jojoba, PEG-16 macadamia glycerides, and PEG-10 Sunflower Glycerides should all be merged here as they are all forms of the same polymer differing only in source of derivation and degree of polymerization.

• Support as nom. --Selket ^Talk 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The four are distinctly different substances, are not interchangeable with each other in praxis, and are listed each under their own distinct name on the ingredient declaration of a product (e.g. shampoo, lotion, etc.) label. Any curious consumer who reads those ingredient lists should be able to type that specific name into the Wikipedia and arrive at an article for that specific substance (in fact, it would be ideal if all common consumer product ingredients were referenced on the Wikipedia). Also, if these had no separate article, and instead were simply mentioned in the Polyethylene glycol article, someone would soon be (rightfully) writing separate articles for these separate substances.István 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  When you merge an article you also redirect it. Since each of these articles is really just 1 line, it can be one line in the PEG article. No? Also, I assume you mean these are the INCI names of ingredients. The INCI system is required in the EU, but not in North America (U.S. uses CTFA, not sure about Canada) suggesting some bias. At any rate, one good article should be better than 4 bad ones. --Selket ^Talk 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the four above, each appears under their own INCI name on product ingredient declarations in the EU, USA and Japan. FWIW, INCI names are adopted by the INC, a part of the CTFA (now PCPC) in the USA and mirrored in Europe via the EU Official Journal (via COLIPA), and in Japan by the JCIA, leaving a mostly-uniform nomenclature system with a few exceptions, none of these 4 being among them. So, names in different regions have nothing to do with the issue. Merging 4 different things into a semirelated article would do a disservice to a reader interested in the specific "thing" listed on her bottle of shampoo. Surely if someone is putting something on their head every day they deserve to see what it is, especially on the wikipedia. István 15:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Support (opinion influenced by Eaberry's input below) — I understand István's concern, but inclusion of the derived forms indicated in the four articles does not eliminate the reader's access to the specific thing; the redirects would be to a section of the article and not to the top level (Template:R to section). If the articles were more expansive, I would say 'oppose' on the grounds that a mention in the PEG article with reference to the main article (Template:Main) would be best. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose These compounds are not PEG, they are nonionic surfactants made by attaching a short PEG chain to what is basically hydrocarbon. There is a section "nonionic and zwitterionic detergents" on the detergent page which mentions this kind of surfactant, and has a link to surfactant. The surfactants page links to classification of surfactants which has a section "nonionic surfactants" which includes a number of PEG ethers and esters. That would be the logical place to merge those into. On this page, under "uses" there could be a one line mention of the use in manufacturing surfactants by attaching PEG to hydrocarbon, and a link to surfactants or detergents page.Eaberry (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actualy under "chemical uses" there is the entry: "PEG derivatives such as narrow range ethoxylates are used as surfactants" which links to the narrow range ethoxylate page. Since this is a specific case out of a wide variety of surfactants made by linking PEG to to hydrocarbon, The "chemical use" entry could be made more general and link to a page dealing with PEG-based surfactants in general, which in turn could cover or link to narrow range ethoxylates AND all these surfactants that are being proposed to merge into here.Eaberry (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polyethylene glycol. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge Macrogol?

Currently, Macrogol contains the medical/pharmaceutical information about this substance, but Polyethylene glycol also has some medical content. Should this content be moved to Macrogol, or should everything be moved here?

There are some examples where we have two articles about a single substance because things would get messy otherwise (Lithium/Lithium (medication) is the only example I can think of right now), and I'm not sure how to implement MOS:MED and MOS:CHEM in a single article. What do other people think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that macrogol is an International Nonproprietary Name, I think that its reasonable to keep it as a separate article, agreeing that lithium is a suitable analagous case where the medical information is kept separately. I also agree that the much of the medical content on the current page would be better moved to macrogol, which would benefit from the additional content. Klbrain (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to similarly suggest that the two articles be merged, or' change PEG into an "overview" article linking to a PEG (industrial) & rename the "Macrogol" article similarly to "Polyethylene Glycol (medical)." ("Macrogol" could then be a redirect, just as other local/brand names for PEG are.) My reasoning:

• The change into overview-with-links is a typical approach used with overly-long WP articles on a topic with multiple subtopics. The "Shared-name (type)" style article naming format is standard.
• In "who gets this article name" disputes, what most visitors are looking for (IMHO the medical info) is used as a major deciding factor. If it was a direct conflict (rather than shared root topic), then the PEG article would then be primarily about the medical uses, with the industrial aspects primarily in a separate article instead.
• Regarding the medical article's name: "Polyethylene glycol" & "PEG" are the only terms truly recognized internationally — "Macrogol" is only used as an everyday name (on labels, by general physicians, etc.) by some countries. (For example, Kaiser Permanente's drug encyclopedia is intended to include all meds in English & Spanish that a member might encounter in the US, and while it knows PEG & a ton of brand names, "Macrogol" gets no search results at all.)

Trilkhai (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Food Uses?

Shouldn't there be a section on types / kinds of food and/or beverage products that this chemical is used in? I was just now reading the label on a bottle of Mr Pibb (soda) - and right there in the list of ingredients is Polyethelene Glycol. How can this important section just be excluded. Many people, myself included, would like to know that this chemical is a popular additive to foods and beverages. I find it difficult to believe this was omitted my mistake, and if someone else doesn't want to add it - I will. Furthermore, some examples of products (such as Mr Pibb) should be called out as examples. There are many more.

Finally, I think the "Uses" section should come at the top of the article, before all the scientific blather bores people to death and scares them off. I understand that there may be a reason for this, but I don't think it's a good reason. These topics need a quick, lay-person friendly description (this is a chemical that does X, Y, Z, among other things. And then talk about how it's used. THEN ... if anyone is still not in a coma, they may wish to analyze its chemical structure and properties, etc. This seems like common sense from my perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this object or substance?

I read the opening paragraph, and look at a rock on my desk, and ask, based only on what the text says, whether this rock is polyethylene glycol. That question cannot be answered. Not one in 100,000 Americans has come into contact with polyethylene glycol , or can accurately describe at least roughly, what it is. The opening paragraph can be moved directly into the text and replaced with something like: “Polyethylene glycol is a colorless, odorless inactive watery organic liquid”. Basically, it’s an -ol organic compound, meaning an alcohol. It’s polymerized ethylene glycol, an antifreeze. Maybe we can start out : “polyethylene glycol is a polymerized alcohol.” We implicitly understand that alcohol is a a watery liquid. Polymers are sort of understood as stringy artificial fibers, so what’s a polymerized liquid mean? It might be more understandable to say that “polyethylene glycol is a long chain alcohol.” That this type of substance is substantially unfamiliar makes a dictionary definition type of introduction quixotic. Chemical jargon makes it even more difficult. Sbalfour (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nr

Can we add this PEG in NR natural rubber 2409:4041:2E17:FA83:0:0:3088:7E12 (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Recreational use section name change

There must be a better term than "recreational uses". The best I could find is "entertainment". For most any chemical substance on Wikipedia, a "recreational use" section is used for personal use involving your body in some way. I realize this is small potatoes but I find it interesting that it took me a long time to come up with a better phrase.

From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recreation: WORDS RELATED TO RECREATION amusement, diversion, enjoyment, fun, hobby, pleasure, relaxation, avocation, ball, dissipation, distraction, ease, entertainment, exercise, festivity, frolic, game, hilarity, holiday, jollity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "Recreational use" is the best neutral term, mostly because I think it is the term most commonly used. However, it might (again: because that is how it is most commonly used) suggest ingesting or injecting the compound for psychoactive effects, which of course isn't among the recreations mentioned in this case (no idea if has such effects, or side-effects). So, I won't change it back.--Nø (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

PEG 3D Structure .png

I need the 3D structure of poly-ethylene-glycol. For example macrogol 4000 and macrogol 400 for reference. --0dorkmann (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC) 0dorkmann (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)