Talk:Tert-Butyl hydroperoxide

I deny this is NFPA 4-4-4. See: http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/chemicals/cn/tert-Butyl%A0hydroperoxide.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.41.226 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond of Death[edit]

I can't believe that it's NFPA 4-4-4 either. I doubt I'd be around if it were, since I'm often adding 200mL or more to a reaction at 80C. There's a more realistic 3-2-2 here and a 1-4-4 here. Basically it seems no-one can decide on the rating (4-4-4 here). But at the moment it's rather misleading to suggest it's as toxic as VX gas and as sensitive as nitroglycerine - it's just not. I don't want to change it without some consensus though (can't find a reference for neat TBHP) Lexyboy (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it now. I don't know if it's possible to put a reference for the NFPA - I couldn't - but the source is here. Lexyboy (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm a bit new to sourcing, but would U.S. Government sources take greater precedent over other sources? The 4-4-4 rating was based on NOAA's CameoChemicals, which is a government authority... Correct me if I am wrong please. Me, GKT5 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldkingtut5 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure how the precedence of sources is determined, especially in a case like this where they disagree so much with each other. I've not found any information on who decides the ratings so it's hard to say which is the most reliable - 4-4-4 is just bonkers. It would be nice to put a source on the NFPA 704 diamond, but this doesn't seem possible with the current infobox format. Lexyboy (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the latest here? I've been hunting around and pretty much every site I look at seems to show a different rating. Perhaps a change in the format of the info box is needed. 131.217.6.8 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too was shocked about the Diamond symbol, i use this stuff regularly at work (in its 70% soln form) and although it has an unpleasant smell and is somewhat toxic there is no way it would be rated 4 on all three. One thinks some kind of vandalism is occurring, possibly by an environmentalist trying to portray the chemical industry in a bad light. Mr Morden76 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism by an environmentalist" seems like a bizarre explanation for the 4-4-4 rating being found in NOAA documents. However, as it's obviously unclear what the true rating is. I've added a note about the NFPA ratings being reported differently, with a reference for each. That Damn Snipergirl 01:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty apparent to me the CameoChemicals reference calling it 4-4-4 is a typo. If you go to that reference [1] and follow the link to their data sheet (under CHRIS code) [2], they actually have it as a 1/4/4/OX (still on the NOAA site). Given the only source, so far as I can tell, to designate it 4-4-4 contradicts itself on the same site, I believe the diamond and reference should be altered to 1-4-4-OX (and discussion of the 4/4/4 rating in the article body removed). There's an additional government-source reference for this 1/4/4/OX designation from NIOSH [3], though it is explicitly the 70% aqueous solution. Anyone disagree? FWIW, I've been looking into this recently, and it does appear that diborane is legitimately 4/4/4/W [4].--ScanningElectronMike (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic name[edit]

I think that the systematic name 2-Methylpropane-2-peroxol is not correct: suffix peroxol is valid for inorganic chemistry not yet for organic compounds. Biglama (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of tBuOOH[edit]

Is there any replacement of tBuOOH in sharpless epoxidation? Pktheanonymous (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]