Talk:Sodium laureth sulfate

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

you need a labeled diagram od Sodium Laureth Sulfate's chemical structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.87.202 (talk) 00:37, August 21, 2002 (UTC)

chemical structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.144.161 (talk) 06:57, December 30, 2004 (UTC)

Here you go. –Mysid (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogen Rumour

I removed the Carcinogenic section, this was just a marketing trick.

I added back a Carcinogen? section because the rumor that SLS/SLES are carcinogenic is very widespread and I'm guessing that a large percentage of the people that look up this page are doing so to see if there is any truth to the rumor. Sapoguapo 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the "Carcinogen?" section because it meandered around the point, failing to actually make it.GreatMizuti 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a rumour when SLS/SLES contains 1,4-dioxane. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers 1,4-dioxane to be a probable carcinogen. The reference proves this. When it is a probable carcinogen it was NEVER a rumour in the first place. --MotherAmy 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple concerns regarding the validity of the sources in this section:

1. "Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) and the American Cancer Society have stated that the common belief that SLES is a carcinogen is an urban legend, a view confirmed by toxicology research by the OSHA, NTP, and IARC.[6]" This links to an article by CTFA (which has now changed their name to the Personal Care Products Center. There is no link to the reported research by the OSHA, NTP or IARC.

2. "While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages manufacturers to remove this contaminant, it is not currently required by federal law.[9]" This links to an FDA publication from 1992, and this link doesn't even mention the substance of discussion.

Proper references must be produced! Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the same Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association that spent over $600,000 on lobbyists trying to prevent the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005. Seems they have a history of trying to cover up things. hmmm I agree it needs to be changed to a more verifiable source. Tremello22 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new to wiki

hi, I was just searching for the critical micelle concentration for sodium lauryl sulfate and I wanted to add it to chemical info. on the side bar. Not sure how to do that, so if anyone wants to add it:

the cmc is 0.008 M

reference: this paper http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/70002014/ABSTRACT

Link to Cold Sores

There have been studies that show a link between Cold Sores and the use of Sodium laureth sulfate (SLS) in toothpaste. Doing a Google search pulls up a lot of anecdotal evidence and commercial websites selling SLS free toothpaste but no direct links to any such study. The best I could find was this personal website where he refers to a study and is NOT trying to sell anything.

Any suggestions as to how to proceed? I have attempted to contact the dentist to see if he can supply more information about the study. Unfortunately there is not Contact page so i had to resort to doing a WHOIS on his domain name.

I have found references to studies in Aphthous ulcer

Thomas Paine 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cold sore is not a canker sore. 99.163.51.172 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulcers and SLS vs SLES

The section on ulcers mentions "sodium laureth sulfate" and gives the abbreviation "SLS", while earlier in the article "sodium laureth sulfate" is given as an alternative name for "sodium lauryl ether sulfate" or "SLES", while "SLS" is given as the abbreviation for "sodium lauryl sulfate". I believe something needs to be changed in the ulcer part of the article. For what it's worth, I'm no expert, but I believe "SLS" is the correct part, as I think "sodium lauryl sulfate" is what's found in most toothpastes, not "sodium laureth sulfate". -ReverendTed 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAS number

Deleted the preceding zeroes in the CAS number, because of them crossfire couldn't find the substance and SciFinder finds no exact matches. I don't know why the zeroes were there in the first place, couldn't find them in any of the inbox references I checked. Montargo (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the structure is wrong, the alkyl tail isn't long enough. You can deduce this by comparing the structure with the molecular formula or by considering that the term lauryl or dodecyl indicates a twelve carbon framework independent of the ether part of the structure. I am unfamiliar with the process of editing existing structures in wikipedia, so I ask if someone with more experience could mend this problem. I am actually unfamiliar with editing texts too but this was fairly easy to comprehend.

Word Choice Seems Biased

The last line of the Toxicology "U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages manufacturers to remove this contaminant" seems a little biased. At the very least, the word choice "contaminant" is incorrect as this chemical is added purposely.