Talk:Diethanolamine

Chemicals: Core Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

diethanolamine what would you use for fittings and pipe to pump it what is it compatible with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.245.11 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethyleneamines and Ethyleneimines Production

I will remove references to ethyleneamines (e.g. ethylenediamine) production from this article. Source cited for that note confirms that diethanolamine is not used for producing ethylenediamine. The only two commercial routes to ethylenediamine are from ethylene dichloride or monoethanolamine, not diethanolamine. Source also confirms that ethyleneimine is a monoethanolamine product, not connected to DEA. 206.16.109.32 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costmetic regulatory issue....

Can someone please provide the info to see if the chemical is included in any Pharmacopoeia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.27.166 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as there are applications from cosmetics http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=diethanolamine cosmetic&num=10&btnG=Search Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.27.166 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some info from the following site. Since my browser can not properly display the info, I leave it for other readers

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/cos-dea.html --222.64.209.74 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any monograph of the chemical in BP 2009....

From the two pdf files at http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/2009/about.htm One can not tell, but the chemical is indexed--222.67.213.151 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the MSDS really safe...???

Merck KGaA puts everything about the chemical on the internet, especially its MSDS, which I don't think the action is safe and social responsible. To my knowledge, to work in pharmas, one has to get a police check. I just raise this issue to the company for limiting the access to the MSDS data. Actually, all the MSDS info should be regulated on the internet--222.67.200.92 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki admin, please remove the content of MSDS in the fact box--222.67.200.92 (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will erase the content of MSDS in the article as well, after it is reviewed.--222.67.200.92 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the access of those MSDS data should be reistricted if the following consequences can be resulted

the chemicals will cause fatal deathes
the chemicals that are used as raw materials, have potential to cause fatal deathes
the chemicals that will cause disabilities of people
the chemicals that are used as raw materials, have potential to cause disabilites of people

any more situations...???--222.64.208.85 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you must realize that especially with dangerous chemicals it is important to have MSDS available as they have information in them how to contain spills, put out fires, save lives! Don't remove information! 81.170.128.60 (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiteate ... It's a perfectly good idea to make MSDSs publicly available. They exist for the specific purpose of making safety data associated with a chemical accessible. Merck or anyone else should not be faulted, but rather congratulated, for making the MSDS available. Also, just so you know, the idea that one has to have a police check to work in the pharmaceutical industry is not correct. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]