Talk:White spirit

Untitled

What is the solubility of CO2 gas within Stoddard solvent? I think this is vital information that needs to be in this article.

Disposal

The article says it should be disposed of properly, but doesn't describe what "properly" is. I think some clarification would be helpful. Jsaurman (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't tip it down the sink. Correct disposal will depend on jurisdiction, and some places may have paint disposal that can handle this. Probably undue for this article. Personally I let it evaporate. Bacteria will finish it of somewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is White Spirit an Acetic Acid?

Or are they of the same thing?

White spirit and acetic acid are unrelated chemically. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is White Spirit used for in the home? Is it harmful to the skin? TurboForce 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit does not cause any corrosive damage to the skin, but it dissolves the natural oils found on it, causing it to dry out. This can cause irritation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.116.91 (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is White Spirit what the Americans call Naptha?

Are they the same thing? How does White Spirit relate to Turpentine Substitute? Can you use it in Coleman fuel lamps in the same way that you can use paraffin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.144.145 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The article on naphtha says it's the same except that in UK white spirit is something completely different. Unfortunately the present article does not currently expound on this. __meco 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit is not Naptha. Naptha is a generic name for a certain fraction of oil. White spirit compounds are from this fraction. 78.33.116.91 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) JoeV[reply]

Merge?

Shouldn't this be merged with Mineral spirits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk08 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with mineral spirits

I think not, mineral spirits come from oil, white spirits do not so they are not the same thing at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.23.48 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't merge. American house painters and artists are accustomed to the term Mineral Spirits (used almost generically to describe solvents other than Turpentine) and would never think to look up White Spirits, which is a term seldom if ever used)--drdarrow (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If the articles are merged, the redirect from mineral spirits would point people to white spirits, and the article says that the US and Canada are the only places that use "mineral spirits." Furthermore, the grade of white spirits is determined by the oil from which they are derived, so indeed white spirits also come from oil. The merits of merging are that the articles won't be separated, which means one less page to load for those with slow or unreliable connections. Tealwisp (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the question is: "Are Mineral Spirits and White Spirit the same thing?" - after reading these articles, I still don't know! The article on White spirit says it is comprised mostly of C7 to C12 hydrocarbons and was developed as a dry cleaner and is used as a paint thinner and solvent; the article on Mineral Spirits says it is mostly hexane (C6) and used as an artist's oil paint thinner. Sounds like different substances. But then we're told that 'Mineral Spirits' are known as 'White spirit' in the UK - and both articles state that they are also known as Stoddard solvent.

Please can someone resolve this. If they are the same, then of course the articles should be merged, with a stub redirecting one term to the other - same as any other synonym. And the composition should be clarified - is it mostly C6 or C7-C12? If they are different, then there should be two articles, with a clear explanation of the different terms used in the US and UK. 147.114.226.193 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia there are bottles of Mineral Spirits and White Spirits made by the same company side by side, so they seem to be different products. I came here to determine what the differences are and it seems to be that it depends on who you are. An authoritive chemical definition would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.41.200 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are unique substances. the problem arises where they are all so generic terms. for that I don't think a merge is in order but just a clarification.Donhoraldo (talk) 02:42, 5 may 2010

merge with mineral spirits

Merging would not be appropriate in this case. Stoddard Solvent (referred to as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Stoddard Solvent, abbreviated TPH-SS) was used for many years as a dry cleaning solvent, and is an important environmental contaminant. It predated solvents like PCE, having a mixture of aromatic, long chain and branched chain hydrocarbons. Historic dry cleaning operations stored Stoddard Solvent in on-site storage tanks, which often leaked, causing groundwater impacts. When the TPH-SS ages, the C-7 to C-15 chains degrade, which can begin to elute in the gasoline range of gas chromatographs (TPH-G). Over time, however, the mixture loses the more volatile constituents, so that chromatograph lacks peaks associated with aromatic moieties. The stuff by itself is very interesting, so merging it with mineral spirits, a much more generic term, and would therefore diminish its usefulness in context.

I am a newbie, so pardon my inability to spend more time here (just wanted to comment on the merger question). According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM)

"Stoddard Solvent. Stoddard solvent is a petroleum distillate widely used as a dry cleaning solvent and as a general cleaner and degreaser. It may also be used as a paint thinner, as a solvent in some types of photocopier toners, in some types of printing inks, and in some adhesives. Stoddard solvent is considered to be a form of mineral spirits, white spirits, and naphtha; however, not all forms of mineral spirits, white spirits, and naphtha are considered to be Stoddard solvent (ATSDR 1995b). Stoddard solvent consists of 30-50% linear and branched alkanes, 30-40% cycloalkanes, and 10-20% aromatic hydrocarbons. Its typical hydrocarbon chain ranges from C7 through C12 in length."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp123-c3.pdf, pg 21.

Ellezeebub (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with any references that say that there are aromatic components in Stoddard Solvent, or white spirits, or "naptha" in the USA. This appears in the beginning of this article and is incorrect, so I removed it. The ^[1] for this material says there is none in its chemical definition. If CDC references say this, it is also obsolete and incorrect.

User: dacarls, Organic chemist. July 6, 2010

References

^ USEPA MSDS

re: a solvent in some types of photocopier toners - I have worked in this industry since 1973, and I can state with authority that such usage has been obsolete since ca.1990LorenzoB (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus... to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit → Mineral spirit – Mineral spirit seems to be the most common name for this chemical, but I'd like some confirmation from the rest of the community. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a US/Europe thing? I've never heard this refered to as anything other than "White Spirit". Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I've never heard of 'mineral spirits'. I suspect this title may well be covered by the provisions of WP:ENGVAR as a British term vs Mineral spirits in the US, in which case we should leave ity where it is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - answering my own question from above, the term "Mineral spirits" is used in the UK, but is much, much less common. Google shopping returned 3,120 results for White spirit, but only 156 for Mineral spirits. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What is Mineral spirit? Isn't the stuff always called either 'white spirit' or 'turps substitute'? Which last, I notice, has its own separate article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Always called white spirit in the UK. Possibly a WP:ENGVAR issue, in which case it should be kept at the title under which it was created. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is fascinating, since as a US native I never knew it was called anything other than "mineral spirit," but if it really is, as it seems to be, an ENGVAR issue, then no unnecessary move should be made. Any input from other English-speaking countries? Is one term predominant? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invention and history

The article states: "In 1924, Atlanta dry cleaner W. J. Stoddard worked with Lloyd E. Jackson of the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research to develop a less volatile dry cleaning solvent as an alternative to the petroleum solvents in use. Dry cleaners began using the result of their work in 1928 and it soon became the predominant dry cleaning solvent in the United States, until the late 1950s." This intimates that they were the inventors in 1924. However, Samuel Banner & Company Ltd claim to have invented White Spirit and were selling it in 1885.

See Banner Chemicals - 150 Years of Innovation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.224.152 (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed Merges

There are 4 sections above wherein it was proposed/requested that the "Mineral Spirits" article be merged with this article. In each of those sections there was either no concensus on a merge, or the merge was opposed. However, as of today(2015-12-13), only this "White Spirits" article appears to exist. The "Mineral Spirits" article appears to have been deleted and is now just a re-direct to this article. On 2011-08-07 user "Ego White Tray"(A "retired" Wiki User) merged in the "Mineral Spirits" article, and on 2012-09-29 user "Ruud Koot"(A user from the Netherlands) merged in the "Mineral Turpentine" article. Both of these merges were done without any discussion here. Should these merges be reversed and the original articles restored? Gcronau (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not be unmerged, unless there is some evidence that they are fundamentally different substances. The last discussion on this was a suggestion to move the article title to "Mineral spirits" which was pretty unanimously opposed, accepted that they were the same, and was formally closed. SpinningSpark 16:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the merger has resulted in a bit of a WP:ENGVAR mess. Presumably White Spirit was originally BE and Mineral Spirits AE. It's not clear what standard should be adopted in these circumstances. --Ef80 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last versions of Mineral spirits and White spirit prior to the merge both used the spelling odor. On that basis, and per WP:RETAIN, I would say the article should be in American English. SpinningSpark 19:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the article should be renamed to Mineral spirits, with White spirit as a redirect. --Ef80 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion further up the page, which decided to keep it at this title. And partially retracting what I said above, the very oldest version of White spirit uses the spelling odour. Not sure at what point it was changed or why, but the principle of WP:RETAIN says that the spelling should be changed back, not the article title. SpinningSpark 19:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see good reason to merge these, giving a clearer overall article, but it has to lose the falsehood that "white spirit" and "substitute turpentine" (both UK) are the same thing. They both have formal definitions and although both are mineral petroleum derivatives, they are significantly different. Otherwise you might as well merge petrol and diesel. For one obvious thing, white spirit will evaporate cleanly, turps sub leaves an oily residue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type/Grade Confusion

In the "Types and Grades" section of the article is the following statement:

 "Each type comprises three different grades: low flash grade, regular grade, and high flash grade."

To me, this implies that each type is available in each of the 3 grades, for a total of 9 different type/grade combinations. (Not counting the Type 0, which appears to be handled differently.) Further, the definition of what a "type" is seems to be confirmed by the information in the smaller table in the following "Chemical Numbers" section. However, the large table in the "Chemical Properties" section confuses this information as it seems to tie each of the 3 grades, "Low", "Regular", and "High" to one specific type each. Ie: Type 1 to Low, Type 2 to Regular, and Type 3 to High. Which seems wrong, or at least contradictory to the previous sections. Can anyone sort this out? Gcronau (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the referenced INCHEM report, a text search produces two matches for "white spirit type 1, regular grade".

White spirit (EHC 187, 1996) (inchem.org)

Although, I would prefer to call it "regular flash" as it's more descriptive than "regular grade". Therefore, "low flash", "regular flash", and "high flash".

Also, there is MIL-PRF-680 that is available to use as further reference, although this is strictly for the United States. The types I, II, and III referenced by this specification appear to correspond to the low/regular/high flash grades.

Any other literature I can find about white spirits mostly seem very limited, vague, or contradictory. I have a feeling that a lot of this information are held within proprietary oil & gas industry knowledge bases instead. I can't even find reliable information from chemical vendors; some product pages make it seem they have no clue what white spirits they are dealing with.

But then again, I'm not formally trained in chemistry or oil derivatives. I'm just interpreting whatever I read. 165.225.36.123 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Only types I and II of the MIL-PRF-680 specification somewhat correspond to regular/high flash grades, respectively. 165.225.36.123 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://www.esig.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Definition-of-White-Spirit-based-on-New-Identification-developed-for-REACh.doc.pdf for an industry-specific classification. 2A02:8084:6A81:5580:1460:C1:4B62:9CD7 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry standard classification available, not referenced in article.

> Three different types and three different grades of white spirit exist. The type refers to whether the solvent has been subjected to hydrodesulfurization (removal of sulfur) alone (type 1), solvent extraction (type 2) or hydrogenation (type 3).

This is incorrect/outdated. An industry standard exists, at least for european companies, aggregated under https://www.reachcentrum.eu/consortia/hydrocarbon-solvents-reach-consortium/

https://www.reachcentrum.eu/globalassets/reach-centrum/consortia-downloads/p-i163-hcsc/others/p-i163-hspa-naming-convention-_27april2022.pdf

and

https://www.esig.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Definition-of-White-Spirit-based-on-New-Identification-developed-for-REACh.doc.pdf 2A02:8084:6A81:5580:1460:C1:4B62:9CD7 (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] USEPA MSDS

[1]