Talk:Perfluorinated compound

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society / Toxicology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The intro is repetitive

and should be drastically edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.17.12 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: HFC Abbreviations

The article isn't clear on the use of abbreviations of "Perfluorinated compounds", sometimes the abbreviation is written "PFCs", sometimes the weird "PFC's". I am no native speaker, but since the "C" stands for the plural "compounds" shouldn't the abbreviation be just PFC? (c.f. article on HFC/HFCs (chemical))92.41.103.186 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

associations with health conditions

here is an interesting piece about how some PFC may be in some way linked with ADHD http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100720131902.htm 92.41.103.186 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, this study is already cited at PFOS and PFOA but perhaps a small section on here for health concerns would be nice eventually. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other atom or functional group

The article states "A perfluorinated compound (PFC) is an organofluorine compound with all hydrogens replaced by fluorine on a carbon chain—but the molecule also contains at least one different atom or functional group." Especially the last part of this statement is, in my opinion, overdone. The compound hexafluor benzene quit often is refered to as "perfluorobenzene". Also perfluoroalkanes are mentioned in chemical texts. Where is the "different atom or functional group" in those compounds? T.vanschaik (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) See also: Perfluorocarbon[reply]

perfluoroalkanes are fluorocarbons. fluorocarbons are the IUPAC name for compounds that only contain carbon and fluorine. perhaps having the pages organofluorine compound, polyfluorinated compound, and fluorocarbon is the best solution. i didn't create this page, although i thought about it, but i did clean it up. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs additional work

The universe of Perfluorinated Compounds is greater that what is reflected here, and includes inorganic compounds such as SF6 and NF3. Perfluorinated Compounds also include perfluorinated alkanes such as CF4 and C2F6. This article needs to be expanded to include all of the different categories of compounds that can be considered to be Perfluorinated Compounds. Eyeze (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There is a huge overlap in the content of this page and that of Fluorocarbon. The disambiguation page PFC lists both, which puzzles this reader. I don't know which is the better title to preserve (making the other a redirect), but I hope that discussion can occur in just one place, so I suggest this section as that place. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is overlapping? If the two pages were merged you would end up with a single page that is as long as both pages combined. There is no repeated content. I can see an argument for adding perfluorocarbons to this page and a link to the other page; that would probably be a good idea. But really, this page is a jumping off point to the different types of perfluorinated compounds, and not much more than that (and that is probably a good thing). F2Andy (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two pages start off with the same definition, one says "Fluorocarbons, sometimes referred to as perfluorocarbons or PFCs" and the other says "A perfluorinated compound (PFC)". I do not see a way to find out about perfluorinated carboxylic acids if one starts at Fluorocarbon. If one is searching for information on "perfluorinated surfactants", which is a commonly seen term, then at "perfluorinated compound", searching for "surfactant" does not find the section called "Fluorosurfactants"; if one starts instead at Fluorocarbon, the link to Fluorosurfactant is helpfully glossed as "fluorinated surfactants", so text search finds it. Fluorocarbon discusses "Environmental and health concerns" for fluoroalkanes, fluoroalkenes and fluoroalkynes; the (single) section at Perfluorinated compound has a structure more amenable to additions, and to structuring it according to the level of risk (it also discusses the toxicity of the surfactants). In other words, the overlap is that the definitions are the same, so that a person with little background would spend some time wondering if there is an important but subtle difference in the wording; also, there may not be chunks of text duplicated, but rather conceptual components exist in both places, and those components are incomplete in both places. I believe that merging the pages could produce a better, more illuminating result. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to remove the merge tag, with good intentions, but was reverted. My mistake. So thanks.

The comment above that the merged article would simply be a sum of the existing two articles seems like a valid point. The C_xF_y compounds (saturated, alkene, alkyne, and arenes) would be a section within the merged article. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Smokefoot (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page could be converted to List of perfluorinated compounds (might need to be done according to WP:SETINDEX) --Project Osprey (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - converting this to List of perfluorinated compounds. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good possibility. Is there any opposition? --Leyo 23:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, fluorosurfactants are widely used.."

In this edit from yesterday,with the summary "Perfluorinated compounds are used ubiquitously = bs, tighten up English" IMHO Smokefoot once more stepped over the boundaries of his chemical expertise. I have nothing against language-clean up, and agree with 90% of what´s in this edit, but not the fact that "Perfluorinated compounds are used ubiquitously" equals bullshit.

I also object to the fact, that the sentence "For example, fluorosurfactants are widely used.." was removed. Why? There´s no doubt that fluorosurfactants are one example of a group of Perfluorinated compounds which are particularly widely used. I know you are not trolling me, Smokefoot -:) but I find it strange that you do not thank me for constructive edits, while you routinely hit hard on the revert button. Lets be cool-headed, ok?

And BTW, the other revert March 2016 has a likely forbidding tone, though preceded by "well intended news report". To say that "Wikipedia is not the right place for such reporting" is incorrect - you could have worked with the user to make it fit (obviosly his/her edit wasnt properly done). The problem is that by now there are hundredsand hundreds of such PF contaminated sites in teh US ALONE (dont know about Europe, maybe you, Smokefoot, know) and they couldnt possibly be mentioned on this page! I have suggested a category before, which was (of course?) rejected. Please tell me, Smokefoot, how shall we solve that - a new page? --Wuerzele (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wuerzele, apologies for appearing to step over you or be uncollegial. No problem is one differs in their views. I am part of a large group of researchers and hear a lot of seminars and read a lot of reports, perfluorocarbons are mentioned or designed into our work about once a year. So on that basis, the idea that perfluorocarbon "are used pervasively" is incorrect and misleading (technical term: bullshit). Pretty sure my experience is not an aberration. We dont want readers misinformed. Your other concern expressed above is my reverting of a new report about PFOS being found as a contaminant on a US airbase. My opinion is that Wikipedia is not the correct forum to list news reports. I revert a lot of news reports following my interpretation of the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. I am sure that PFOS is of concern, but listing individual news reports does not seem like the way to go.

Getting back to business, the main issue with the article is the absence of a solid citation that supports the definition of this class of compounds. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2018

Perfluorinated compound → Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” (PFAS) is the consensus term for this group of chemicals (see e.g. FluoroCouncil, US EPA, ATSDR, consensus paper by a group of more than 50 international scientists and regulators). --Leyo 10:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances is clumsy and unclear, 2) Wikipedia already has organofluorine chemistry, which covers entities with both C-F and other kinds of bonds, e.g. C-H, and many related organoF articles, 3) regulatory agencies are IMHO not the right people to name chemicals or groups of chemicals. People who make chemicals are more suitable (otherwise we end up with crazy stuff like ethanoic acid). My two cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) The opposite is the case. Compounds such as silicon tetrafluoride or sulfur hexafluoride might also be considered as perfluorinated compounds, whereas they are clearly not PFASs.

2) Wikipedia also as an article on e.g. (per)fluorocarbons (C_xF_y). Not every aspect of organofluorine chemistry may be covered in this article.

3) The term is also used in science (as shown above) and industry (FluoroCouncil added above).

After what you suggested in a related topic I know how to interpret your opinion in that topic. --Leyo 14:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. So, the current title is missing the assumed “organo”? The proposed is not a good solution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any argument here. --Leyo 23:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There appear to be three classes of compound here: perflourinated compounds, perflouroalkyl compounds, and polyflouroalkyl compounds. This proposal seems to rescope the article to restrict it to the latter two classes, which are more commonly discussed together for commercial and regulatory reasons, and commonly called substances but are all compounds (a compound is a substance but not necessarily vice versa). No case has been made for this, and the proposed name while common is awkward, relatively esoteric and better avoided in any case. Andrewa (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is no “flouro”. There is “flour” and in this case “fluoro”. “Esoteric”, are you kidding?! The article contains multiple (groups of) compounds and that are not covered by the current title of the article, as they are polyfluoroalkyl substances. --Leyo 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality definition

Definition given suggests only cc and cf bonds apart from heteratomic bonds but shows pentafluorophenol which has a non hetetoatomic co bond. The two are clearly mutually exclusive 209.93.146.80 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]