Talk:5-Nitro-2-propoxyaniline

Untitled

There seems to be a problem with this article, so I have added the "verify" tag. The compound as named does not appear in any puclication accessible to Chemical Abstracts. I suspect the name given to the compound (the title of the article) is incorrect. It does not follow standard chemical nomenclature. Edgar181 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect error for 5-nitro-2-propoxyaniline, which would be 1-propoxy-2-amino-4-nitrobenzene named in the other order, and is cited as 4000 times sweeter than sugar with a ban on US use for possible toxic effects [Merck Index 10th edition] - MA Lloyd

That's it! Thanks. I've moved the article to the correct title and then expanded the article. Edgar181 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit hard to believe that Ultrasuess could be sufficiently toxic in the amounts necessary to use it as an artificial sweetener. To maintain a single teaspoon of sweetness (compared to sucrose) one would need 1/4000th of a teaspoon (5ml/4000 = 1.25 picoliters). I can't imagine that this stuff would be that toxic... only thing I know of that toxic is Botulism toxin. Besides, saccharin was known to cause cancer in mice, but still used for human consumption, and aspartame is known to metabolize into three different compounds, all of which are toxic at some doses. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Many anilines are generally toxic and often carcinogenic. Many nitro compounds are toxic. Putting both of those functional groups in the same molecule as in nitroanilines (such as 5-nitro-2-propoxyaniline), and you get potent toxicity. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 ([[User talk:TinucherianBot|talk]]) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

toxic ??

So why was this banned? From the current page, it sounds like it was arbitrarily banned because of business interests who wanted didn't want the competition against their own artificial sweeteners. Patcat88 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, "Many anilines are generally toxic and often carcinogenic. Many nitro compounds are toxic. Putting both of those functional groups in the same molecule as in nitroanilines (such as 5-nitro-2-propoxyaniline), and you get potent toxicity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.190.173 (talk)

i would suggest then a note to that effect being added to the article then. also probably a citation needed for that bit, currently uncited. the cite further down for FDA regulations is just that, FDA regulations, and doesn't serve as an adequate reference for why it was banned or what the possible toxicity was as it's non-specific to this substance. --76.170.99.57 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Article not a stub?

I see the "stub" tag has been removed from looking at the edit history page, but I question this action, for several reasons:

• The obvious, overall and marked brevity of the article • The lack of historical information, i.e. who/when/where/how discovered, any other research done into the substance either prior to or after discovering its potential use as a sweetener, etc. • Any discussion whatsoever about what the "possible toxicity" concerns were/are • Legal status in countries other than the US, if known (the inclusion of its banning in the US opens the door to inclusion of legal status elsewhere)

Additionally, the cited sources are horrendously limited...and as I've noted in part above, of the two, only one is an actual link that doesn't actually serve as a source for the information that cites it (or really much anything in the article at all), i.e. it's a link to FDA regulations in general and not anything even referencing any FDA decisions or other action such as even mere hearings or applications regarding the substance, even tangentially. There should properly be a citation to support the first paragraph as well. The first reference is fine, as it supports the property information included in the sidebar only and is not improperly cited in the body.

Also the last sentence is poorly written, as it seems to imply a reference to prior information that the article does not actually contain:

"In the US, food containing any added or detectable level of 5-nitro-2-propoxyaniline is deemed to be adulterated in violation of the act based upon an order published in the Federal Register of January 19, 1950 (15 FR 321).[2]"

"[I]n violation of the act..." - what act? Deemed by who, Congress or the FDA or...? Actually the text of the act, whatever act it is, would be a useful reference as well, in addition to any reference(s) regarding toxicity concerns or historical background. 76.170.99.57 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)