Talk:Acrylamide

Chemicals B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

health risk

Also, If Most of our acrylamides come from coffee, than why has there been no demonstrable link between coffee and cancers? In fact, a study conducted in Japan on consumption of 2 cups non-decaf coffee per day found a nearly 50% reduction in liver cancers over the control group.

Are our foodstuffs such as cows, being tested for cancer before being sold?

IANAD (I Am Not A Doctor), but can cancer spread via foodstuffs that way? I don't believe it can? - Jugalator 01:27, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is Acrylamide a neurotoxin??? AFAIK, it is a neurotoxin. (I have been taught of this since I learnt how to cast SDS-PAGE Gel.) --Herbal Lemon 16:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the article with more information about direct acrylamide exposure, and the negative results from recent cancer research. The former may answer your question somewhat better than before. :-) After doing that research, yes, it seems like it has effects similar to a neurotoxin in very large doses to me, as among others it can cause nausea, slurred speech, and paresthesia (disorders in your nervous system). - Jugalator 01:27, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's a neurotoxin - my biochem lecturer spilt some on his hand once and it was numb for over a week. Don't know how it works but I believe it's worth wearing gloves when preparing polyacrylamide gels. Meconium 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, how is it that the article states that the amount of acrylamide found in food is safe, but then many of the "external links" to newssites state that it is not? 65.24.24.173 01:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is too complacent about the possible cancer risk from acrylamides. (Aside - research may not have found a differential consumption for people with/without cancer because everyone is already stuffed to the gills with it. ) droid

I had added some additional information about acrylamide in the diet and adjusted the article to give a more balanced view of the possible dangers (I guess that perhaps someone with a business interest in selling fried or baked food may have been trying to gloss over the potential dangers?). And by the way - there are many other food dangers in commonly eaten foods - eg. carcinogens in herbs and spices, and especially in nitrites (or is it nitrates?) used to preserve meat. I read a book about this recently, but have, er, forgotten what it is called. I wish someone would write an article on food risks if there is not one already. droid.

I have re-instated the improved version of the page after someone changed it back without explaination. The new version is the same as the version I found but has more information about acrylamides from food and cooking, gives a more balanced and fairer treatment of the possible health dangers (as the above user comments, the texts glossing over of the potential dangers was contradicted by the content of the links), and has one additional link. I am a post-graduate who has studied the dietry issues for a long time, so I think I know what I'm writing about. [Then you should know how to properly cite the sources of your information. Individual claims should refer to footnotes or annotated with an inline citation. A collection of links at the end is not helpful by itself. Note: I have not made any changes to the article; that was someone else.] I would appreciate it if the person who changed it back could provide an intelligent and rational justification for doing so. Thanks. droid.

The change was mine, and the change involved ONLY wikilinking some terms and specifying the content of compensatory anticancer chemicals in coffee (see the diff). I reinstated that version. What else did I change, according to you? --Shaddack 13:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I updated the section on cancer, and then adding a reference section created a table of contents, and as it was kinda weird having a toc in the lower third of the page I had to add other titles ... please adjust if you have a better idea Christian.B 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) --68.149.171.39 10:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part about "isn't coffee boiled?" bothers me. I don't think that it takes into account the roasting process which, because of the high roasting temperatures, could produce acrylamides. So coffee beans that had not been brewed would show presence of acrylamides upon analysis. However, could the process of brewing change the structure so that acrylamides are no longer present in brewed coffee? This needs research.Amber r07 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next, California lawyers are going to go after parents, bakers, coffee drinkers, olive makers, dried fruit and prune juice makers everywhere. You too will get sued for millions of dollars. Why? Because a very small something in the food that people have been making and eating for thousands of years has been found to cause cancer in rats when congested in very high levels 'by itself' for months on end.76.215.47.190 (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMILES inconsistency

I'm not a chemist. It's disconcerting to me that the SMILES string in the main text differs than the one in the sidebar overview. Is this due to discrepancy, or non-canonical notation? MaxEnt 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply that the molecule can be notated in more than one way, similar to how comounds can have more than one IUPAC name depending on where you start. A species is in brackets to show that its a self contained group, anything after the brackets is attached to the atom before them. While I'm sure one or the other is deprecated, theyre both comprehensible. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of the structure image for Acrylamide

The correct structure for Acrylamide should show as -CONH2 (rather than CONH) - please help edit.

Regards Mehtapm 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

The first paragaph of the 'cancer link' chapter contains a lot of weasel words: 'Some sources claim', 'accounts for a significant number', 'no consensus among the scientific and medical community', 'actively researched and investigated by government bodies', 'several different countries', 'Some research'. this should be clarified or removed. Update: paragaph removed.Sciencefact 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ambiguity in intro

What does 'Acrylamide is incompatible with' in the initial paragraph mean? How & why is it incompatible unless this is obvious or excplained it prob shouldn't be there esp in the intro --Nate1481 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also dissatisfied with the intro. It needs a heavier usage of the inverted pyramid. The health effects need at least a mention, especially since the research gets mentioned without any context given until well down the article. It would be better if the Swedish research were moved down-article and the context given first.--24.6.198.12 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.198.12 (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acrylamide in Olives

Has anyone a reference for this claim ? Nothing is said about this in the article on Olives.

Ditto prunes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.183.213 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Acrylamide in Potatoes

How does the storage-temperature issue tie in with the commonly used frozen potatoes ? One suspects that once freezing takes place, the fructose formation is stalled, but what are the facts ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.177.139 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Non-thermal decomposition

Does anyone have a reference to the non-thermal decomposition producing dimethylamine? I don't see any good mechanism for this. If non-thermal means hydrolysis, the product should be ammonia, which I've changed the article to say. ChemGardener 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it DOES cause cancer says EU

See for example this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/03/sciacril103.xml Its late at night for me, no time to do anything more tonight. 80.0.118.134 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC name

Two different options currently given by the article. This can't be right. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For further confusion see IUPAC amide nomenclature and amide naming conventions. By the way, I like the option in the table better. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]