Talk:Cocamidopropyl betaine

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

7

IUPAC

IUPAC Name replaced--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenicity

Is it carcinogenic? Badagnani (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use in products by E. H. Bronner

Liquid soaps produced by E. H. Bronner include the ingredient coco-betaine. Is that the same as this compound? In the company's literature, "coco-betaine" is described as a foaming agent created by combining coconut fatty acids with betaine). Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a liquid castile soap before. It was very drying. Coco-betaine is a different ingredient but it has its own set of problems such as skin dermatitis. --MotherAmy 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Coco betaine" can refer to "cocamidopropyl betaine", but it can also refer to "Coco betaine", which is the betaine derived from the reaction between coco amine and sodium monochloroacetate. The terminology in the surfactant industry isn't always standardized, so without seeing the CAS Number, it's difficult to know for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.148.173 (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"-propyl" suffix

Does the "-propyl" suffix indicate that a petrochemical is used in the process of making this compound? Badagnani (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.171.66 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not, then, when a company produces this chemical, which ingredient(s) are used to produce this "-propyl" component, and from what are those ingredients made? Badagnani (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'propyl' comes from dimethylaminopropylamine AKA DMAPA. Can't say exactly how it is synthesized other than methyl functional groups and amino functional groups added to a carbon backbone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.143.9 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon Nonsense

This article goes deep into complexity but makes no attempt to inform the reader what the thing is made of. Very easy to add. Not very helpful outside a lab. ~ R.T.G 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to claim it is made from coconut oil when it is mostly made from chemicals. --MotherAmy 06:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is made from coconut oil, dimethylpropylamine and chloracetic acid. Yes, coconut oil contains those nasty chemicals, just like all things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.29.1.16 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut oil...IS...made of chemicals. And FYI the chemical in question, CPAB, is synthesized from byproducts of coconut oil transesterification (hence the name cocamide.) It is a betaine, meaning it contains atoms with opposite charge (not adjacent to each other) within the same molecule. It derives its surfactant properties from its hydrophilic regions (charged atoms and polar carbonyl functional groups) and its hydrophobic regions (alkyl chain.) I do not know the industrial synthesis route. Honestly. Sometimes I wonder about the folks posting on talk pages. 70.233.152.84 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to say 'coconut oil contains those nasty things' Coco oil is combined with those things in subsequent reactions to make CAPB.

BTW, when Ug the caveman dropped animal fat on the fire he just discovered it reacted with the ash to form the first soap. Chemicals like CAPB are more effective versions of the same thing manufactured in a controlled way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.143.9 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of the date of 6/21/2012 on the news they have reported that this ingredient in baby shampoo cause a postivie test for cannbis. Why is this so? And furthermore what chemical is used in this compound to cause this reaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:1A:243A:1547:4CB7:FAED (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic

(Note: To clairify, this dispute is over the word "synthetic" being added to this article without sources or context. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

I've removed it twice from this article, once from another. The rationale all appears to be original research to create a pov not in any sources: "synthetic" means not naturally occurring in nature, and this is relevant because it is common for this chemical compound to be misrepresented as natural because it is derived from coconuts [1]. If we can find a source verifying this that demonstrates encyclopedic value, maybe we can add it to the article content. Do Wikiprojects Chemistry or Chemicals have any guidance? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sources, let alone any demonstrating encyclopedic value: it's clearly not OR becuase the production is described in the text - the introductory paragraph *should* include elements of the body of the article [2] --Ronz (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is synthetic. I assume no one is disputing that fact. Just clicking through a bunch of articles about chemical compounds I find lots of examples where "synthetic" (or similarly, "natural") is specified in the lead sentence (5-Methyl-7-methoxyisoflavone, Sulfoaildenafil, Chlorogenic acid, to name just a few) without a specific source that "demonstrates encyclopedic value". Demanding such a source for including this one word where it is not required for those other articles, it seems you are unreasonably applying a requirement to this article and not others. Why the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

We don't improve Wikipedia by copying what may be problems from other articles. Those three should not be used as examples given their quality rating.

I already pointed out two of the obvious places to look for how to handle this are the Wikiprojects.

If you want to find a good article to discuss, please do. Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Chemistry_and_materials_science looks like a good area to look within. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a problem on other articles. It is routine, mundane, and uncontroversial. It is a property that is of widespread public interest - just look at product labeling (foods with "no artificial colors or flavors", cosmetics marketed with "all natural ingredients", and the like). 108.16.195.202 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but while that is your personal opinion, we don't base article content on personal opinion. If you have sources supporting those opinions, or can demonstrate there is some sort of general consensus for them, then please do so. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a discussed consensus for every little statement on Wikipedia. I'm claiming that there is an absence of controversy and the fact that there hasn't been a need for a discussion to establish consensus over this little statement is evidence enough for an absense of controversy. Putting this ridiculousness aside, I think the "^{[original research?]}" tag on the word "synthetic" is inappropriate because there is no absolutely no original research involved in claiming that CAPB is synthetic. 108.16.195.202 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit: Please note that patents are not acceptable sources for much of anything. They are primary sources that are only reviewed for uniqueness of claims.

I'm claiming that there is an absence of controversy Sorry, but I find the claims you make to support its inclusion to be contradictory. Which is it? this is relevant because it is common for this chemical compound to be misrepresented as natural because it is derived from coconuts[3] (made without sources still), or is there no controversy at all?

Of the three articles you identified, only Sulfoaildenafil is similar, but there the content is properly sourced and presented. How about we follow that example of yours? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the lede's of the GA articles that I recommended earlier. Of the 19, three mention "synthetic" or something similar: Mephedrone ("synthetic"), Norepinephrine ("synthesized"), and Zinc oxide ("Although it occurs naturally as the mineral zincite, most zinc oxide is produced synthetically."). Given this, I think the word needs removal without a source clarifying what is meant and why it is of note, as these articles do. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the dispute?

What is the debate about? I couldnt figure it out from the conversation above. Whether to label the commercial material synthetic or not? (my guess: probably somewhere in between).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the label belongs anywhere in this article to start. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem reasonable to include it. Compounds like this, which are synthetic but largely made from renewable bio-matter are sometimes called bio-derived or bio-based. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer some sources? The GA articles I identified above all have sections on the synthesis/production of the chemical. In this context and properly source, there should be no dispute.

The ip added the content because of the controversy of it being labeled "natural" or accepted as an ingredient in "natural" products. No sources have been offered. While I can verify that there is indeed a dispute on this topic, I cannot find any sources that are independent enough to demonstrate that this is of encyclopedic value rather than just the obvious marketing ploy. There are various definitions and certifications for claiming something is a "natural" product. For one editor to add content to rebut this controversy without a source is OR at best. I'm moving it from the lede. Nothing said so far even begins to demonstrate it belongs there. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking for sources and looking over related articles, I've asked for help at WikiProject_Chemicals#Cocamidopropyl_betaine. I hope I've brought up all the relevant aspects of the dispute and presented them neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've a new source and a detailed response at the WikiProject. I hope this settles the the dispute, except concerns about it being misrepresented as "natural".

I'd like to move on to focusing on finding sources for it's being an accepted ingredient in "natural" products, and independent sources for there being real controversy (rather than marketing hype) over it being an accepted ingredient. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toothpaste safety: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), vs cocoamidopropyl betaine (CAPB)

Perhaps Wikipedia should mention the following information?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8811135/

The aim of the present clinical double-blind crossover study was to investigate the effect of two different toothpaste detergents, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and cocoamidopropyl betaine (CAPB), as compared with a detergent-free paste, on 30 patients with frequent occurrences of recurrent aphthous ulcers. The study consisted of three 6-week periods during which the patients brushed twice daily with the different test toothpastes. The localization and number of new ulcers were assessed. A significantly higher frequency of aphthous ulcers was demonstrated when the patients brushed with an SLS- than with a CAPB-containing or a detergent-free placebo paste. An SLS-free toothpaste may thus be recommended for patients with recurrent aphthous ulcers.

217.140.211.251 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't report on single studies but instead waits for review articles. See WP:MEDRS for details. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]