Talk:6PPD

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This page needs a {{ChemBox}} I am not a chemist. Chris~enwiki (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a good start, but it puts relatively much weight on a very recent and small set of papers, which have not yet been digested and valued by the larger scientific community.

What do we actually know about this stuff? In September, not many knew anything. In December, vigilant major agencies push out one narrative, which then spreads in WP and furthers itself. Biasing is apparent. So care must be taken to reduce recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.156.132 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true there is a recent aspect picked up by the news. But given this article is only a stub (four sentences), it's reasonable that something picked up by secondary sources would be at least mentioned. I toned it down a bit, with an explicit note that this is indeed a recent and single study. The more general use and chemical aspects have a 2005 ref (PMID16227180) and a 2007 ref (Ullmann) that could be used to write more. in particular discusses this specific chemical in relation to others in its class and mentions a second toxicity concern. I don't have access to the full Ullmann, but it might have content related to its mode of action as an antiozonant. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that there is something in storm water runoff that has been killing fish. The Science paper is a report of an extensive and thorough investigation (over 2 years), involving a large team of scientists. They used a bio-assay (salmon fry death within a few hours after exposure) to isolate this single quinone through an extensive fractionation of runoff water. To their surprise, this was an unknown compound, there were, for instance no reference standards available for the chemical. Their reference 21, Latimer, R.P, et al, Rubber Chem. Technol. 56 431-439 (1983), describes the industrial chemistry of 6PPD reactions with ozone, leading to their conclusion that the toxicant was the quinone derivative. They report extensive experiments to corroborate their finding, e.g. reporting various chemical analyses of 6PPD ozone reaction products, and testing archived runoff samples. They have no apparent ax to grind. Something is killing the fish. They have identified a specific chemical that seems to explain it. Having read the paper, I have no doubt that they are correct in their identification. The alarming part is that 6PPD is 0.4-2% of the rubber in ~3 billion tires made a year. Their cautious conclusions, e.g. that current assessments are "incomplete", and that human health effects "merit evaluation", seem prudent. AJim (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pure conjecture - but the core functional group in 6PPD-Q is also present in Tanespimycin, Mitomycin C, Apaziquone and other related DNA-crosslinking chemotherapy agents. Project Osprey (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]