Talk:Propylene

message: The article title has been changed despite the fact that it no longer is in harmony with the text (inserted by several different editors). The article is most consistent with "propene" as the title. I would like it to revert to propene.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: ... is currently being discussed here. Yilloslime (t) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The of this article: Propene v. Propylene

message: Why is the molecular mass not shown in the properties table?77.87.224.99 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Molecular mass

message: How does this gas react with excess oxygen and limited oxygen? 76.124.224.179 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: -- rdmenotte (rdmenotte) 07:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combustion 

message: The external link to the MSDS leads into Nirwana. 160.62.4.100 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . I replaced the broken link with a working one.  Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Link broken

message: * Formula of 2-bromopropene is not CH2=CH-CH2Br, but CH2=CBr-CH3.--Brane.Blokar (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-bromopropene   

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Propene. 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/20141006095526/http://www.praxair.com/~/media/North%20America/US/Documents/SDS/Propylene%20C3H6%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet%20SDS%20P4648.ashx to http://www.praxair.com/~/media/North%20America/US/Documents/SDS/Propylene%20C3H6%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet%20SDS%20P4648.ashx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I figured that some organism had developed a way to make propene, but SciFinder came up with few hits under "propylene biosynthesis".  I found three patents on engineered organisms:
*Propylene synthesis using engineered enzymes
:By Silverman, Joshua A.; Purcell, Thomas Joseph
:From U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. (2015), US 20150232886 A1 20150820.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS
:The present disclosure relates to biosynthetic methods for producing propylene and to genetically engineered organisms ..
*Propylene synthesis using engineered enzymes derived from C1-metabolizing microorganisms
:By Silverman, Joshua; Purcell, Thomas Joseph
:From PCT Int. Appl. (2014), WO 2014047209 A1 20140327.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS
:A synthetic pathway for the manuf. of propylene from C1 compds. is described... convert a C1 compd. to 3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA ,, crotonic acid... decarboxylation...
*Metabolic engineering of microorganisms for producing propylene and metabolic pathways and enzymes related thereto
:By Burgard, Anthony P.; Osterhout, Robin E.; Sun, Jun; Pharkya, Priti; Burk, Mark J.
:From U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. (2012), US 20120329119 A1 20121227.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS
:The invention provides non-naturally occurring microbial organisms having a propylene pathway... 
So, apparently it is not made naturally.  It is bioactive as a competitor with ethylene as a plant hormone. One more note: SciFinder lists ~83,601 citations for propene.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I reformatted to clarify each patent's details This ref I added recently to the article says plainly "Propylene, according to GBE, has never been naturally directly produced by microorganisms", and also mentions several companies that are working on engineered enzymes to do it (predates the patents you found). DMacks (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Apparently my search term "propylene biosynthesis" was not ideal to find earlier citations.   Kind of interesting that nature overlooked this small molecule.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Propene biosynthesis, not

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Propene →  – The article title for this compound should be its trivial name or common name, propylene, rather than its systematic or preferred IUPAC name, propene, per WP:OCHEMNAME. Compare with ethylene versus its redirect ethene and polypropylene versus its redirect polypropene. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 June 2022 

message: I'm new to Talk and comments, but not new to chemistry. (Or new to edits over the years). I haven't done any edits here, but found the tone of the last phrase of the last paragraph in the "Production" section leaving a reader feeling "bluntly final", regardless if it's true or not that biosynthesis is impossible...
For no apparent reason it's somewhat pessimistic or perhaps slightly negative sounding regarding biosynthesis? At the least in quite contrast to the previous paragraph. (Regarding the section:  Production: FCC vs. "Market...").
It's actually where I decided to stop reading for pleasure and go back to work, frankly. That's all. This was supposed to be a quick comment. Janka441 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the phrasing.  I possibly/probably wrote the bit that bothered you somewhat.  The issue encountered in Wikipedia is so filled with idealists and tree-huggers that they often write in ways that imply that green routes are just around the corner.  That wish is usually unfounded, based on my reading.  --Smokefoot (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production: FCC/Market... Tone 

message: Someone please add pressure for liquid in density part of the infobox. 141.134.140.104 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add pressure for liquid in density part of infobox