Talk:Glycerol

message: Claims there is no topical treatment for 3rd degree burns. Hmmm. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's web-article on 3D burns claims in the treatment section that treatment may include "antibiotic creams or ointments" (which by definition are topical). The false or at least certainly misleading claim (misleading since AB treat or prevent infections subsequent to a 3DB rather than the damage itself, but since it is part of the treatment (in some cases) and aids in healing, that distinction is almost impossible to justify). This article is not about burns, and I suggest the false and quite unnecessary claim be removed.174.131.48.89 (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Someone must have misinterpreted the source, which at the end correctly says that no dressings have been approved for third-degree burns. The source, I might add, is a press release for a glycerin-based dressing for use in first and second-degree burns, but you can't dress a third-degree burn because that would be like putting a bandage on gangrene. The dead and dying tissue has to be removed and new skin grafted into place. But topical ointments and gels? Sure, those have to be used. So I say go ahead and remove the sentence. You can easily do that yourself. Just leave a little edit summary at the box at the bottom pointing people to this discussion. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted sentence claiming "no topical treatment" as discussed  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical, et al, section 

message: The claim that it is "non-toxic" is apparently false. There are cases of glycerol toxicity in children who consume too much of it - typically in slushies (?) that use excessive glycerol (more than a typical recipe containing glycerol as a texture additive or sweetener substitute) to maintain a liquid state. Less info is available on whether it ever affects adults, but it has caused hypoglycemia and unresponsive unconsciousness in small children which is diagnosed as "glycerol toxicity" thereby indicating it is not in fact non-toxic. 97.68.70.242 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Glycerin generally is considered non-toxic, with the word "toxic" generally reserved for poisons. Just about anything is bad for people if taken in excess. For example, water is typically considered to be the least toxic substance known, but even water can be overdosed on, which causes death very rapidly. (See: Water toxicity) Still, it's not a poison in the usual sense and in normal doses is considered non-toxic. Glycerin is similar. It probably wouldn't hurt to add some information on the possibility of overdosing on glycerin, but in general it's not a poison but a food substance, so I think describing it as non-toxic is still correct. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glycerol doesn't meet any definition of toxic substance.  Non-toxic does not mean non-harmful.  If you consume oxygen, water, salt, sugar, or anything else, in excess it can result in injury.  The LD50 of oral glycerol is >20g/kg, which is more than other common non-toxic substance like table salt. The therapeutic dose, when used as an osmotic diuretic, is 1.5g/kg per dose every 4h.  For your standard 10kg 1 year old that is about two teaspoons (11ml) per dose (that is enough to cause a mild increase in urinary output).  Rats given 10g/kg per day per year suffered no ill effects.  Chronic exposure adverse effects are mostly due to its caloric effects--it is usually completely absorbed within 30 minutes of ingestion and is metabolized like simple sugars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glycerol Toxicity