Talk:Denatonium

message: It isn't stated what this chemical is made from? Is it synthesized from a particular plant? Badagnani 05:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is it made from?

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I've deleted the following anecdote from the intro section of the article: "An anecdote relates how one of the researchers at Atomergic Chemetals Corp. in Plainview, New York, went home without realising that he had a tiny trace of denatonium saccharide on the outside of his lip. When he kissed his wife, she almost vomited."  It was sourced "Science '84, as quoted in Reader's Digest (August 1985)"
This looks like an urban legend, to me, especially given its provenance and the anonymous "researcher".  Surely, he would have been able to taste the denatonium on his own lips before it had such a dramatic effect on his wife?  Dricherby (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote 

message: Which sense of "irritation" is intended here?
:It is not known to pose any long-term health risks although exposure may be irritating and unpleasant.
I'm guessing psychological irritation, distress, rather than physical inflammation. Could it be replaced with a less ambiguous term? Alternatively, maybe omit the word, if it's just intended as a synonym for unpleasantness? Dependent Variable (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irritation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Denatonium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616104140/http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia99/os/aversive.pdf to http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia99/os/aversive.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616104140/http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia99/os/aversive.pdf to http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia99/os/aversive.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106210619/http://www.pestcontrolshop.co.uk:80/acatalog/rats.html to http://www.pestcontrolshop.co.uk/acatalog/rats.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is absolute rubbish that a compound "discovered" in 1958 was first synthesized in 1963. It is not a natural product, so it  required (organic laboratory) synthesis.  According to Encylopedia.com, W.Barnes working at T.& H.Smith (precursor to Macfarlan Smith) synthesized it in Edinburgh in 1958 INTENTIONALLY as a lidocaine derivative in search of a dental anesthetic. Some of what Encyclopedia.com has to say is wrong. It claims that Barnes added a benzoyl group to lidocaine using benzoic acid (BA). I'd *guess* this is wrong in describing the reactants. But I can't completely rule it out - it would require the loss of OOH, which wouldn't be my first guess as to a viable route. Other sources, INCLUDING the Macfarlane Smith web site (!!) claims the chemical was "discovered by accident". Well, I needed to understand that, since accident implied the compound was unintentional (which is possible, but still much less likely than intentionally making it and discovering it was unsuitable as a dental anesthetic (for obvious reasons) but then observing the taste (and odor)) was not a bug but a feature. (In 1958 chemists would often smell and taste the chemicals they worked with. The literature is full of sensory perceptions that would be grounds for termination now.) I admit to cherry-picking sources here. There are innumerable ways to synthesize any organic compound. There are a handful of notable syntheses : (excluding as a work of art (there are some really beautiful syntheses)) 1. First synthesis 2. First total synthesis (not from natural products) 3. Commercially significant syntheses (both historically and currently and 4. Better purity, faster, or cheaper; not to mention green chemical considerations (less wastes or less energy). To sum up, apparently this article is wrong, it was not Macfarlan Smith that did the work.  It was not first synthesized in 1963. I will change both. I can neither confirm nor contradict the claim that the benzyl chloride+lidocaine route was first done in 1963, although why that would be true isn't obvious to me. So, I will change "Macfarlan Smith" to "T. & H. Smith" but leave the link to the Macfarlan page. I will change "It was synthesized for the first time in 1963 by reacting benzyl chloride with lidocaine." to "By 1963 it was made reacting benzyl chloride with lidocaine." The use of "first" should, imho, be avoided until/unless more detailed historical accounts are cited since it clearly was NOT the first synthesis.40.142.183.146 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis