Talk:Emulsion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contamination effect

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are from PT. SOC BATAM (INDONESIA). We would like to request more information for this Emulsifier. Is it hazard for containmation when this chemical Emulsifier were apply at the electricity components. (eg. The handglove make from Emulsifier chemical and we using for screening the electronic components).

We kindly to hear further information.

Thanks and regards

• Emulsifier is a name for a property of a chemical - like acid or base - and not a particular chemical. You should contact the person you purchased the chemical from for more information. --Einstein9073 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homogenized milk

Is homogenized milk an emulsion? Fat is suspended in water.

Yes. - Cybergoth 16:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pickering Stabilization

The "Pickering stabilization" link doesn't take you to a specific article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

what type of emulsifier is used for creating chocolate? because i love leia hemmingsly. sojalecticine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.59.77 (talk) 09:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Some (maybe all) chocolates use soy lecithin. --Jmz9466 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Acrylic Polymer Emulsion

"Over time, emulsions tend to revert to the stable state of oil separated from water." I have no idea what acrylic polymer emulsion is, but it is water-based (I think), so it involves no oil (I think): If an organic chemist, or any chemist, OR ANYONE :-), could clear this up I would appreciate it, also it is used in coffee.

The See Also section now has a link to Emulsion polymerization, which says that in a polymer emulsion, the monomer is the oil. Indeterminate (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Propofol image

20 ml ampule of 1% propofol emulsion suitable for intravenous injection. The manufacturers emulsify the lipid soluble propofol in a mixture of water, soy oil and egg lecithin.

When I view the main page, I see the image "code" instead of the image itself - but when I copy it here it seems to work. What's the deal? Jefromi (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue with image

The description of the image mentions the surfactant as a "purple outline", yet it is not visible (or at least, barely visible). The image should be edited to enhance the visibility of this outline. Fuzzform (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The outline needs to be made thicker. --Una Smith (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the outline about 2x thicker. --İnfoCan (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting info ?

The text says that nanoemulsions are not yet ready for intravenous injection (due to effect on blood cells), but the picture's caption says this is a nanoemulsion for intravenous injection.

Which is right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plvekamp (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured it out myself with a little research.... The picture is of a regular emulsion, not a nanoemulsion. The text next to the picture is solely about nanoemulsion in medicine, which is a bit misleading to the casual reader. Plvekamp (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Emulsion

What is the basic structure of an emulsifier?(210.212.45.40 06:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) How much quantity of emulsifier should be added while making emulsifiable concentrate of insecticide. ice cream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.208.51 (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC) i like it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.57.16 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs some copy edit

This sentence needs a lot or work, or could possibly be removed:

"A review article in [1] introduces into various attempts to describe dispersions / emulsions."

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on food

The section on food only gives a very cursory list of emulsifiers. Isn't soy lecithin sometimes used as an emulsifier?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Emulsifier/Surfactant

Emulsifier goes to Emulsion, where it is treated as interchangeable with Surfactant. This is a little confusing. Should Emulsifier be separated, then combined with Surfactant? ENeville 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Surfactants and emulsifiers are all serving to decrease the interfacial tension between two different interfaces, whether it be a fluid-fluid interface, air-fluid interface, etc. Surfactants can therefore be used to decrease the interfacial tension between two fluids and allow for them to be emulsified, but this may not be their sole purpose. Quite honestly they can be used interchangeably, it is their intended goal, not their chemical structure nor surface interactions, that classify them as surfactant or emulsifier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.179.26 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think ithis article should include the importance of emulsifications in digestion 194.204.110.244 08:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

Due to the recent Michael Jackson murder trial, I suggest something other than propofol as a pharmacological emulsion. Simply to avoid offending people's sensitivities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninlyoko (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Difference between emulsifiers and surfactants?

This article does not enlighten me as to the difference between "emulsifier" and "surfactant", both of which the article uses, seemingly interchangeably and without comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.58.246 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Surfactant is short for "surface active agent", so all emulsifiers are surfactants. However the inverse is not necessarily true. Agents that are good for foaming are also surfactants, but may be poor emulsifiers. In any case, the whole article needs rewriting, so this is the least of our problems. AlanParkerFrance (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emulsion. 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/20080705134014/http://nano.med.umich.edu/Platforms/Adjuvant-Vaccine-Development.html to http://www.nano.med.umich.edu/Platforms/Adjuvant-Vaccine-Development.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) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"... without a sound scientific basis" (re. stability testing)

The above statement has already been marked as needing citation, but IMO even if it *had* a proper citation it wouldn't be particularly helpful to readers in its current form. It's just sort of a dangling factoid.

My guess is that the person who made that statement had a further point to make - perhaps regarding unreliability of "best before" dates printed on consumer products?

Whatever useful point was about to be made, IMO either that point should be made explicitly, or the paragraph I'm referring to should be deleted, because in its current form it doesn't contribute much at all.

In other words, if the rest of the paragraph would be deleted as off-topic, then get rid of this introductory statement as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I should have said that the part I'm talking about is under "Appearance and properties" / "Accelerating methods for shelf life prediction". TooManyFingers (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Should "Emulsifier" be split off?

I think that the "Emulsifier"section should be split off as a separate article. It should duly point out the overlap with other concepts like dispersant, plasticizer, surfactant, and detergent, noting that the differences are largely in the intent of the addition, rather than in the substances or mechanism.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Photography

There ought to be more info here regarding photographic emulsions and their compositions.

I suggest a separate page specifically for photography related emulsions. BTW, see Photo emulsion. Since this article is on the chemistry of emuslion , I'm going to remove the filmaking tag. ENeville 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Photographic emulsion is not a true emulsion, but is a suspension of solid particles in a fluid. The word emulsion is established usage in photography and photographic science."--Wikipedia, Photographic Emulsion. For that reason, I think that the text "the photo-sensitive side of photographic film," should be removed from the introduction of this article, or, alternatively, the reader should be referred to the Photographic Emulsion for that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.140.5 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) ss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.115.54.201 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples in the Introduction, and other sections

I worked on this article a bit (having come to it through the "pages with intros too long" tag), and there have been some edits and reversions, so I think it might be appropriate to have a small discussion about examples in this article. There are thousands, probably millions, of emulsions in the world, used for a variety of purposes, I'm just not sure that this article needs to be a place where every single one of them is listed. If you have an example of a specific emulsion's use, or if the example is illustrating a property, then by all means I think they warrant inclusion. IMHO long lists of examples, however, tend to clutter up the article and reduce the readability. If anybody feels otherwise, I'd be open to hearing other thoughts on the subject. Jhfortier (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm admitting up front that the article is far from perfect right now: there are way too many examples. I think the task is going to be removing the unnecessary ones and keeping the ones that really illustrated emulsions for the average reader Jhfortier (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A specific example that I find questionable is the coffee 'crema', which is usually given as an example of a food foam rather than an emulsion RheoPirate (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)