Talk:Thickening agent

message: Scope for merger with the stubby thickening? FlagSteward 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?

message: I was shocked to discover this articel on Wikipedia.  I've been in the Paint, Adhesives and Sealants industry for forty years and in reading the first paragraph of this discovered that there are seemingly professionals out there who believe that NON-AQUEOUS thickeners do not exist or play a significant role in today's world.  Defining thickeners as something ONLY involving aqueous systems is egregious.  Please correct this asap.69.40.241.198 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABSOLUTELY WRONG 

message: Hi -- I saw that the cosmetics section had a heading for needing citation. I ran across this article which seems like a potentially good source of information on the use of thickeners in cosmetics. Among other things, they discuss the use of new thickeners in new formulations of shampoos, and look at why thickeners are used (discuss the appeal to consumers). The article does not cover everything in this section of the wiki article, but may cover some of the information, and provide new material. I'm not quite sure what to add, and how to mix new ideas with old, but wanted to add this source so that someone with a better idea of what the structure of the wiki article should be could elaborate on this topic.
https://personal-care.evonik.com/product/personal-care/en/media-center/downloads/publications/Documents/sofw-thickening-agents.pdf
Journal Title: International Journal for Applied Science
• Personal Care • Detergents • Specialties
Article Title: Thickening Agents for Surfactant Systems
Authors of Article: U. Kortemeier, J. Venzmer, A. Howe, B. Grüning, S. Herrwerth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.39.240.64 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmetics Subsection 

message: Help needed:  I don't understand the repeated use of future tense ("would be" and "will be") in this paragraph.  Are each of these statements saying "X is true  without the use of thickeners"?  And, therefore:  "With thickeners, X is no longer true"?
* "Water based formulas" would be nearly impossible with the exception of India ink and the few other water-soluble pigments, but these would have very little coverage and at best would stain wood slightly."  (With thickeners, water based formulas are possible, and have good coverage and stain wood well?)
* "All modern paints and inks will have some pigment added at the factory for opacity and to control the specularity of the finish, from matte to high gloss, dependent on thickener used, but more so on the size of the particles added as opacity modifier." (With thickeners, do some paints NOT have pigment added?  Or is this saying the pigment is the thickener and controls specularity?)
* "Particle sizes of 1 µm and below will be the limit of high gloss, probably confined to luxury automotive coatings, and about 100 µm particulates will make a bumpy surface on the microscopic scale, which scatters light and makes the surface appear matte."  (With thickeners, these particle size values are different?)
--Harris7 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint and printing thickeners