Talk:Chloroform

Confusing sentence

In the United States, chloroform did not replace ether as an anesthetic until the beginning of the 20th century; however, its use was readily abandoned in favor of the latter upon discovery of its undesirable toxicological properties and its propensity to cause sudden, fatal cardiac arrhythmia in a manner analogous to what is now termed sudden sniffer's death.

This sentence could be better written. I assume it's trying to say that ether was abandoned in favor of chloroform upon discovery of ether's toxicological properties and propensity to cause cardiac arrhythmia. Is this right? If so, some of the occurrences of "its" should probably be clarified, and "latter" should be changed to "former". I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. —Bkell 19:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the sentence is confusing, the proof is that you got it the wrong way round! Chloroform is more likely than ether to cause sudden death (some people are hypersensitive to CHCl3), which is why ether continued to be used as an anaesthetic dispite the fire risk. Will see what I can do, when I get hold of some verifiable sources. Physchim62 19:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You'll find some debate among historians of medicine as to why it was the case, but in the UK and Germany (and possibly elsewhere in Europe; I don't know) chloroform dominated anaesthesia in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, while in the US, ether did. Chloroform certainly had its critics during this whole time, but the debate of which one was safer wasn't conclusively decided until the 1930s (the numbers were something like 1 in 5000 fatal complications for chloroform vs. 1 in 20,000 for ether), at which point, it was moot, since it was about this time that barbiturates came onto the scene. Shimmin 21:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much what I remember from university, although both figures for the mortality rate from this period seems a little low to me. We still need some sources on this, I'll see what I can do. Physchim62 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultural representation / popular culture

Considering how widely accepted the knocking out with chloroform trope is, I think it should have its own section. This isn't a thing of past, the trope is still widely used in fiction and even sexualised. ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

sourcing for inadvertent formation

The only source for the inadvertent formation section is an industrial handbook which talks about the theoretical chemistry. Crucially, there is no sourcing for a medical case study or autopsy report or news article or anything that actually proves this has ever occurred in real life as a true accident. For a number of chemical reasons I feel this reaction is unlikely to occur in real-life conditions.

When done purposefully with consumer-grade reagents this reaction is run at 0* C or slightly lower in an ice bath for about an hour with stirring using an excess of alcohol to avoid chlorinated byproducts. A reaction normally done cold, over a modest period (though not long by reaction standards), with stirring, and precise stoichiometry, and a reaction run a short time, at room temperature, without a stir bar, quite likely under diluted conditions Like being poured in a toilet bowl, with slapdash mixing and ratios are not comparable reactions. I firmly feel the as-it-would-be-in-real-life reaction conditions would be unlikely to produce an amount of chloroform that could become hazardous if indeed it produces any appreciable amount at all and any chloroform so produced would be diluted into the reagents and side products such that it would not be volatile.

As a result unless quality sources which prove this has actually happened in a real life situation involving a real person and not simply a theoretical warning in a book for industrial chemists (the current citation), a PSA which is unsourced, urban legends, or apocrypha the entire section ought to be removed. 2601:246:5D80:A0C0:95BE:4F0D:74BF:518E (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The section can likely be re-written to better reflect that almost all possible inadvertent formation methods produce a negligible amount of chloroform. ECHA has a fairly thorough overview in its risk assessment of chloroform linked here. Reconrabbit 20:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Sodium Hypochlorite article has it worse. It outright says that you'll get cancer if you mix bleach and acetone. ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oral LD50 missing

Any reliable source for oral LD50 of chloroform? ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sigma-Aldrich gives it as 908 mg/kg. [1] Appropriate for inclusion? Reconrabbit 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

FischerSci here gives 3 different oral LD50 values:

• Oral, mouse: LD50 = 36 mg/kg; (suspiciously low)

• Oral, rat: LD50 = 695 mg/kg;
• Oral, rat: LD50 = 1250 mg/kg;

Different online sources give different values.

ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This concern is reflected in the ECHA risk assessment: [2] There may be better means of risk characterization. Document states "mean lethal oral dose" is ≈ 45 g. Reconrabbit 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What happened if we inhale chloroform

Tell pls 2409:4088:CEBC:2086:0:0:740A:1614 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)