Talk:Sucrose

message: Here is the link removed:
| ImageFile3 = Sucrose ball-and-stick.gif
| ImageName3 = Ball-and-stick model of sucrose molecule
It was annoying and can make it almost impossible to read the text, adds absolutely nothing, and is not even a very good quality image. There is no pedagogic value to such an image. Certainly an external link to a manipulable 3D graphic such as https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=sucrose might be appropriate. Perhaps I am oversensitive about this. I personally cannot read text next to a moving image. I figure that if it is that disturbing to me, it might be to others. I would like to find out what research has been done on this, but I don't have any at this moment. There must be some somewhere. 
Hansonrstolaf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: animated graphic removed

message: It says the boiling point of sucrose is ".dec" what does that mean?
:Under decomposition. Meaning the saccharose gets destroyed while boiling. --188.103.229.169 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Boiling Point

message: Do you want to stick the other chemical name on?   
[beta]-D-Fructofuranosyl [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside
Source: http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/app.html
Phil
If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself!  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to.  Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes.  If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 01:13, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Some of the comments don't seem to be relevant to wikipedia?
--Doctorkc (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical name 

message: When I was researching Maltose ,Something struck me as odd about the chemical formula. I came over here and found out what was wrong, the same fomula for this is repeated over there.
So which is the right one?
:The empirical formulas are the same. Note that the full names differ.GraemeLeggett 20:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm confused. I thought alpha-fructose has the alcohol group (OH) upside in the anomeric carbon 83.44.34.89 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct. The fructose unit is "upside down" relative to how it is generally shown. alpha/beta is an example of a relative stereochemical descriptor (chemistry). "beta" means "on the same side as the CH2OH group" (defining "D"); "alpha" means "on the opposite side of the CH2OH group, when "D". (Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. "beta" means on the opposite side of the vertical line of a Fischer projection relative to the last oxygen atom of the chain -- the one on the center defining L or D. [] So L/D gets you the absolute configuration of the entire sugar, and alpha/beta gets you the relative orientation of the anomeric center relative to that. Hansonrstolaf (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Formula 

message: Sucrose is composed of two simple sugars: fructose and glucose. Now, I can't count how many times I've heard the phrase "sugar is bad for you". What part of sucrose is bad: the fructose, or the glucose? Or both? Scorpionman 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not thinking.. Glucose is a sugar, fructose is a sugar, sucrose is a sugar. Sugar is bad for you. 219.77.98.28 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  health problems 

message: Your structure is wrong - it shows D glucose and L-fructose - should be D-glucose and D-fructose. Good picture is available on commons. See the difference:
:You are correct.  I've fixed the mistake.  (In the future, you're welcome to do it yourself.) Edgar181 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should the "sucrose.png" be removed, and "saccharose.png" renamed, then? Or at least swop the names? I don't know how to do it. Remember to swop the names in this talk page if you do. 219.77.98.28 09:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: I removed the statement, "Studies have also shown that tumors, especially cancers, consume most of the sugar people eat." There is a grain of truth there, in that many cancer cells take up glucose at a faster rate than the cells of surrounding tissues, making it possible to locate metastases by using PET scanning to detect concentrations of radioactively tagged glucose. That's entirely different, though, from saying that cancer consumes most of the sugar people eat, a statement that is self-evidently untrue for the vast majority of people who don't even have cancer. Since the true statement is really about glucose, not sucrose, and is far more relevant to articles about cancer and radiology than to one about sugar, I thought it better to omit the reference than to correct it. Paul Turner 16:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugar and cancer 

message: I am skeptical that "your cleansing source online"  is a reliable source to include in this article.  I would like to see some references to medical journal articles about sugar "leeching nutrients from the body because it is so nutriet poor".  Anyone care to give opinions? --Syrthiss 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a commercial site selling a colon cleansing program in which one receives supervision and instructions from someone calling himself Jos-hua Medicine Man. I took out the link and the information taken directly from it. Paul Turner 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol I hadn't seen that.  Ok, good call on both our parts. :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent link addition? 

message: I changed the sentence reading "As such it is common in many processed and junk foods" to "As such it is common in many processed and so-called "junk foods"." I feel this is slightly more neutral. Joeylawn 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed 'junk food' reference (NPOV) 

message: I think the safety diamonds have recently been updated for sucrose. The new bottle in the lab I work in is rated health-1, flamability-2, and reactivity-1.
I wonder what they're thinking of when they say sucrose is a "slight" health risk? "Warning: may cause obesity if consumed in large amounts"? --AaronM 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was wondering why would something that is consumed by just about everyone on Earth would "cause irritation but only minor residual injury". Someone mind checking this out?BeefRendang 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety Diamonds 

message: Is Sucrose actually combustible? I thought it simple decomposed but I only have three years of high school backing me up so there's a good chance I'm wrong. If it can is there something that must happen like direct flame or no flame and only heat?
* There is an amazingly fun way to test this one out yourself - all you need is a bag of sugar and a flame! Inhuman14 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The similarity goes no further than having the same constituents: carbon, hyrogen and oxygen.  The structure of simple alcohols (methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, etc - click the links to see the structures) is completely different. You may be thinking of a more complex structure with an -OH radical - such a structure may well be called an alcohol as well, however an unqualified reference to alcohol would usually be understood to mean one of the short-chain simple forms, as found in methylated sprits or alcoholic beverages. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combustible? 

message: What's chewcowenthia? A google search comes up with nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.236.126 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  chewcowenthia 

message: The picture of sucrose only has 21 Hydrogens.  The two pictures on this talk page each have 22 Hydrogens.  The missing one is attached to glucose-carbon 5.  The carbon immediately below the non-cyclic carbon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.55.240 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing H?

message: I am making ice cream.  Why does fructose interfere with the crystaline structure of ice water, but sucrose does not?  I would like to know more about how sucrose acts in ice crystals, and chemical applications in food production.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo517 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal structure

message: Why is the arrow 1↔2 two-sided? --kupirijo (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1↔2 

message: : Although most soft drinks in the USA are now made with high fructose corn syrup, not sucrose, this makes little functional difference, since high fructose corn syrup contains fructose and glucose in a similar ratio to that produced metabolically from sucrose.
This statement is patently wrong. Yes, HFCS contains fructose and glucose in similar ratios, but as sucrose is a disaccharide and its breakdown is limited by the availability of sucrase, the availability of fructose (which requires the liver enzymes fructokinase, triokinase, and to some extent, aldolase B) is therefore regulated.
With HFCS, no such regulation exists and the liver produces these enzymes in vast quantities to break down the flood of free fructose.
So clearly, there is a major functional difference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.3.74 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction regarding HFCS 

message: It says on this page that sucrose has a high GI. I tried to find a source to verify this and couldn't - most websites put the GI of table sugar at anywhere between 43-61, putting it in the low or medium category. can anyone find a definite figure for the GI of sucrose?Michael1244 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: High GI?

message: I don't see the point of that table, showing the ratio of sugar to fat consumed has increased tells us nothing, it's totally biased. Fat intake has increased in the Western World in recent decades, just to a slightly lesser extent than carbs. Obesity has increased because people are eating more of everything, not because the roportions of different types of food has changed. 82.5.217.254 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity 

message: this article claims fructose is the primary sugar in pears and grapes. Grapes contain glucose: a ripe grape contains just as much fructose as glucose. see Webster's 1913 entry for grape sugar and for glucose at http://dictionary.die.net/glucose, and also 
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/A647BBD4-08D5-494B-A55B-680667E6C342/56373/compositionofgrapes.pdf
Also, the grapes page does not mention which sugar is in them. (though glucose says grape sugar is a synonym - no source.)  I would propose correcting this one (sucrose) for grapes, or deleting the grapes statement altogether since it doesn't relate to sucrose, (though it may be valid for pears) and possible adding a line to grapes regarding glucose, though I don't know where it fits in context.
-David
HappySneezy (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  grapes contain both glucose and fructose 

message: Are there any isomers of sucrose that are levorotatory? 173.17.169.171 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-sucrose? 

message: What's the speed constant of socrose hydrolyzation reaction ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoannaAnn (talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydrolyzation reaction speed constant 

message: It seems that all the content of that section is based upon religious issues rather then anything regarding ethics. Religion and ethics are not necessarily the same thing. 76.170.170.58 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical concerns should be renamed to "Religious concerns" 

message: Someone should do a write-up on the controversies surrounding the presumed melting point of sucrose.  As can be seen at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725123549.htm there is an assumption that sugar was always believed to have a melting point, and that this proof of decomposition was startling new information.  That would be fascinating enough, yet but to quote the 1853 "Cyclopedia of Useful Arts & Manufactures":
"crystallized cane-sugar and barley-sugar consist of C12H11O11, but if heated to temperatures between 300 and 400 [degrees] they lose two equivalents of water, and become converted to caramel".
The apparent centuries-long *loss* of facts related to sugary non-meltability and its recent rediscovery would make a useful background for students of the scientific method. 
76.21.5.244 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting Point Controversies 

message: Hello. I suggest we split this article in an article on "Sucrose" and another article on "Sugar refinement". 
The subject of sucrose is much broader than sugar refinement alone and the article as it is, contains too much information on the refinement process and history. While it is important and interesting in itself, I dont think it should fill up so much space in an article on just sucrose. It is worthy of an article all on its own. Such a new page can also contain information on the refinement of other sugars, such as coconut and palm sugar for example. In addition it can also tell more about molasses perhaps. Post your comments below please. RhinoMind (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the old merger proposal above, some of the sugar refinement stuff in this article, could perhaps be merged with the Sugar page. Maybe. Just a thought. RhinoMind (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article splitting? 

message: Note that I just corrected the paragraph about HFCS health concerns. (diff) While the previous version did not say anything strictly inaccurate - "there are claims" that HFCS is especially nasty, and the industry disputes these claims - it was extremely misleading because it ignored the very large preponderance of scientific and medical opinion, which agrees with the industry that HFCS is not especially nasty. This also brings the paragraph in line with the main high fructose corn syrup article, which correctly describes the consensus (although IMO it still gives too much weight to a few really shitty advocacy studies, but whatever.)
Also, the only "citation" here previously was a half-assed reference to a TV documentary - "'The man who made us fat', TV series narrated by Jacques Peritti, 2012?". Heh. 174.93.32.178 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  HFCS again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sucrose. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcvitaminslife.com/HealthFacts/Article429.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 07:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: On the nutrient label of any edible product, why is sugar the only nutrient ingredient without a daily nutrient value?
Thank you
M.cook  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.195.17 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  nutrient label 

message: Can someone publish the magnetic susceptibility of sucrose in the chembox section #2 physical properties? I'm having a hard time finding such simple data. If someone has a magnetic susceptibility balance it would be just a short calculation that could benefit everyone! Standard magnetic susceptibility units are either cm3/mol or cm3/g. Remember to fill in the correct units or place the data here and I can place it in the physical properties box for us. TerpeneOtto (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Susceptibility 

message: Someone asked me why sugar is so soluble in water.  I had previously told them that ionic bonds generally resulted in things that were soluble in water, whereas covalent bonds generally resulted in things that were relatively insoluble in water.  But they brought up sugar, and I guessed that its solubility had s.t. to do with the oxygens.  I came here looking for an answer, but the problem is not discussed.  Could someone who knows more about such things than I do add a paragraph on that?  Looking elsewhere, it appears that it has to do with the OH groups on sugar, which are somewhat polar (as are the OH bonds in water).  But a fuller explanation would be...well, fuller.  Mcswell (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility in water 

message: "digestion releases about 4 small calories per gram"
Doesn't a gram contain 4 regular kcal? Perhaps a historic unit like "small" should be avoided. -- J7n (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small calories 

message: I see that the source is : "Prices from 1960 to 2010 are ICE spot sugar prices. Prices from 2011 onward are ICE contract 11 nearby futures prices. Data compiled by the USDA.". It would be useful if the graph could be annotated to say whether the prices are for 1 January, 30 June, maximum for the year, average for the year, or what. Exbrum (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  World raw sugar price from 1960 to 2014 

message: The image currently* describing sucrose on the Main page shows a (#1C to #5C) linkage of glucose to fructose respectively.
But it should show (#1C to #2C) linkage of glucose to fructose respectively.
*-> At time of writing that is 19 November 2021; 12:45 IST 2402:3A80:1818:654B:0:6:9D67:9B01 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of structure of fructose is wrong. 

message: At the end of the summary article*, the chemical formula is malformed when seen  in Android 10. Perhaps the author omitted trailing "end sub" digit delimiters in angle brackets.   *Typically what shows up when there's an embedded ref. in another article Nikevich 22:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed chemical formula