Talk:Carbonation

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Shaking

The article states:

"It is commonly said that shaking a carbonated beverage will cause large amounts of foam to erupt upon opening, and it is often believed that shaking a bottle containing a carbonated beverage will cause the pressure inside to rise. In fact, when a pressure gauge is attached to a pressurized bottle of a carbonated beverage, it is found that the pressure within does not increase. It is instead the formation of tiny bubbles from the agitation that causes the foam; upon opening, the size of the bubbles will rapidly increase due to the reduction in pressure, resulting in excessive foaming."

This can be proven false by anyone with a plastic container containing a carbonated beverage. Seal the container, apply pressure with your hand to the outside, shake the container, apply pressure again. There will be a noticeable difference in pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second this - the statement given is absurd and the experiment described is what I would have suggested. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But but but...that would be original research! Atario (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed this section for the reasons given above, and also because it is completely unsourced. If someone can give a well-sourced proof that the pressure does not increase, they are welcome to add it back in. Beatfox (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know how to add my 2 cents to this article so i'm barnacling onto this section. Usually, real understanding hides in the unanswered questions. For example, why does temperature increase allow greater solution of solids and liquids into solvents but it's the opposite for gasses which require lower temperature for greater dissolution. The answer is in why does beer suddenly fizz out of the bottle if you sharply tap the bottle. The shock wave forces tiny bubbles to form which precipitates the CO2 out of the liquid. Any kind of movement whether it be shaking or increased movement due to temperature will cause the gas to precipitate. Impurities will also act to seed CO2 out of the liquid. But how does pressure fit into all of this? For example if you freeze a bottle of coke and thaw it, the gas will separate from the liquid and will not rejoin. It couldn't have been pressure alone that forced the CO2 to dissolve into the liquid because the same pressure is still there before and after freezing. Stirring the solution of liquid and gas by shaking the bottle will also not re-dissolve the CO2. I can only conclude dissolution is achieved by the carbonic acid reaction and not by external pressure. If pressure is involved there must be a certain pressure threshold below which dissolution will not occur. Also, since hysteresis is involved, the removal of external pressure will not necessarily precipitate the CO2 out of solution. I have found that if you carefully open a bottle without any shaking, the gas will not precipitate out of the bottle even with an open cap. This means the external pressure is not an important factor in keeping the gas dissolved. Keeping the liquid motionless is the most important factor. But then again, why does shaking a closed bottle of pop, not precipitate the gas out of the liquid. External pressure is a factor there. The strangest thing I've found is that a slow leak from the bottle will quickly precipitate the CO2 out of the liquid even though a good amount of backpressure exists in the bottle. I wonder if air contact with the surface of the liquid has some effect on drawing out the CO2. CO2 is heavier than air so it may act like a surface blanket so long as it's undisturbed. Anyways, I think a hysteresis curve relating external pressure to gas dissolution is an important missing piece of the puzzle. my email is ralfcis@hotmail.com

Wow

I took the liberty of deleting the global warming section as I am certain that it is just bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japadrum (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does this mean?

Carbonated liquids can pose a potential hazard; if shaken or jolted in an enclosed space such as a bottle or can, the carbonation can cause pressure to build to the point where it could cause a violent, explosive decompression when the seal is broken that could possibly cause injury.

Cause injury? to whom? Dappled Sage 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pressure build up is not very violent, no matter how hard and how long you shake. The can is filled almost to a full, so the liquid is given little space to move and therefore the agitation is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.242.192 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what?

Using H2C03 (aq) is not incorrect: it indicates that the carbonic acid is in solution. Type "H2C03 (aq)" into Google and you'll get quite a few hits. To be more correct, CO2 should also be (aq) rather than (g), since it is dissolved CO2 that reacts with water. The correct formula would be

H₂O + CO₂ (aq) ↔ H₂CO₃ (aq)

Saying H2O (aq) would be redundant, since it is saying "water dissolved in water", which is rather mundane, and thus truly not needed. Brian Rock

I get 7 hits with the quotes, and 1 hit without the quotes.

Darrien 19:17, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

I thought maybe the alteration I made last time might have influenced you to look at it in a new light, but I guess not. Chances are nobody but you or I care about this. It really is a minor point - it's not worth any more effort on my part. I'll not change it again. Brian Rock 00:31, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

If the above sounds like a bit of attitude crept in, pardon. Brian Rock 00:37, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

How can you tell which soda has the most carbonation?

How can you tell

which soda has the most carbonation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.191.19 (talk • contribs)

look at how many bubbles there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk • contribs)

The correct answer is to look at the price. Whatever is cheapest has the most carbonation. I have no idea why. Ewlyahoocom 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I must agree with Ewlyahoocom that cheap often means more carbonation, I will try to test some with my manual Carbonation tester and post the results if I can find the right fittings.--Phillipbeynon 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

soda

Soda=Diabetes

Further, what happens to the carbonic acid when the drink goes flat? Are the bubbles carrying the acid traces? What ensures the sense of homogeneous distribution of bubbles?

Thanks, Eliot

No, it doesn't have the same fizzy sensation, because there are no bubbles. It tastes the same. You can see from the formula at the top of the article that there is an equilibrium between aqueous carbonic acid and gaseous carbon dioxide. I guess you could say the bubbles are "carrying the acid traces", because they are made of carbon dioxide. —Keenan Pepper 04:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does Carbonated Water do to people, other than adding fizz to the drink, some one told me it will make you very sleepy, and that's why they add caffeine to Sodas to per you back up, also I heard it takes Calcium out of your system and its bad for your bones ? are any of these things true ? Thanks people

Corbonated water is just club soda wich is really bland and not good with out flavor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.99.251 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold carbonation

During addition of carbon dioxide to soft drink, the process is usually cold. Why is that? -Olotu O.

Could it be because the solubility decreases with temperature? —Keenan Pepper 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, gas solubility increases as the temperature decreases (this can be seen by leaving a cold glass of water to warm up to room temp - small gas bubbles form). But then how is the carbonic acid equalibrium affected by temperature? Possibly the overall effect is that carbonation occurs fastest at low temperatures, anyone know? - Jack (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jack has it right. Co2 solubility increases as temperature decreases. Check out Mccann's Website

Current article on carbonation: horrible

this current article on carbonation is horrible. i am now fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk • contribs)

Talk from Effervescence

Is it true that in a perfectly clean glass with no dirt contamination (dust etc.) effervescence cannot happen as there are no seed crystals for the fizzing to start? I mean, as an example, if you pour champagne in a cleanroom clean glas the champagne rests rather dull and fizzy-free? --Abdull 09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suggest you check out nucleation. Christophe Lasserre 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk Effervescent

Just wondering if effervescent should have a definition in its own right - since the definition applies more widely than to bubbles arising from carbonation CustardJack 12:20, 14 April 2005

Merge

carbonated water is made by carbonation. Neither is a particually complicated thing, and they don't really merit their own articles. It would be useful to have the info for both on the same page. I say merge' - Jack (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)' dont do drugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.99.251 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effervescence is not the same as carbonation

Carbonation is a specific example of effervescence. Surely Carbonation should be a subtopic in effervescence, not vice versa. 195.137.93.230 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Caffiene

Is this section vandalism? As far as I know Carbonation has nothing to do with Caffeine. When this section is removed or edited, please remove the essay-entry|section tag. Thanks.--France3470 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed this section completely as no one has responded. If this was indeed part of the article please revert my changes.--France3470 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caffine makes you have some real good times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.99.251 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaking: re-equilibrate?

I don't think there's a verb based on equilibrium. I don't know what the writer is trying to say, so I didn't re-write it using a valid verb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdX20 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. I believe, though I am certainly no expert, that re-equilibriate can be changed to "bring to equilibrium". I don't really understand this sentence either; it may need some clarification.--France3470 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own the antique device (pictured) used to measure the level of carbonation before distributing product to soda fountains. Upon reading section I found it clumsy if not in error. I've removed the "re-equilibrate" bit and added something which is unfortunately kind of wordy and doesn't mesh well, but I think it's still an improvement.--Phillipbeynon 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after resealing a carbonated liquid the pressure is still at atmospheric. The gas coming out of the liquid then raises the pressure in the space, until it finally reaches equilibrium, and then the gas production stops. The rate of gas production is more or less proportional to the surface area of the liquid (including the surface area of any bubbles), since the CO2 diffuses across the surface area at a roughly constant rate.WolfKeeper 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you shake the bottle after resealing you produce lots of little bubbles, which gives a greater total surface area, so the gas evolves more quickly and equilibrium is reached sooner.WolfKeeper 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WolfKeeper for adding "speeds the rate ". That's much more precise. I think there is still something missing from this section on shaking though. It seems to me that given these percepts, a bottle left sitting long enough would eventually reach the same explosive potential as one that has recently been shaken, however this is not the case, as I believe, if left to sit, the recently shaken bottle will "calm down". I use these subjective terms because I don't believe pressure is the main force involved here. There seems to be something more to this.

what diagram do you think its needed?

tellme and if i can ill do it Yupi666 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this template because this article has a couple of photos and it's not clear what kind of diagram would be useful. If you re-add it please add some detail about what kind of diagram you want. --pfctdayelise (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic: Hazards and Dangers

Am I the only one who thinks the discussion of the negative health effects of soda and dangers of carbonated beverage containers is way off topic in an article that is supposed to be about carbonation? These things relate specifically to drinks so it seems like they would be better placed in the article about soft drinks.

Also, the text at the bottom of the section that says "[edit] see also" along with the complete lack of citations or links makes it look like the entire section was directly copy/pasted from someplace else.

I'm in favor of deleting the entire Hazards section. Objections? ThinkGreen 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Edward Willhoft added this section sometime previously on the wrong page, got angry when it was removed, and pasted it directly into this article and the article on carbonated water. I still don't think it's appropriate for this page. --ThinkGreen 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is offtopic. And way out of its proportionate significance to the topic. Richard J Kinch 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we possibly move this someplace else or start a new article about beverage containers? The author obviously put a lot of effort into it (see his comments on my talk page) so I'd like to try and clean it up and find a place for it if we can. My main concern now is over whether it is encyclopedic enough to be included in wikipedia; my impression is that it reads too much like a research paper written for some other purpose, but with some effort I think it could be adapted enough to comply with wikipedia's quality standards. I'd like to get other peoples comments, and I'll probably get started on a new article this weekend if there are no objections. --ThinkGreen 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is an off topic discussion, since the widest recognized application of carbonation is in soft drinks. Anyone researching carbonation is not going to be put off by a discussion of carbonation's effects when used in soda. It relates directly to the topic and should be left in. jparenti 20:56, 04 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that if a person were looking for information on the health hazards of soft drinks, they would simply pull up the detailed article on soft drinks; there is an extensive section covering the same material in greater detail there, so this section only serves as a poorly placed duplicate. As for the section on "physical dangers"... while the information is good, the level of detail seems ridiculous for something only tangentially related to carbonation itself and I think it would be better placed in a new article about beverage containers.

Just because somebody reading this article wouldn't be "put off" by the inclusion of this information isn't a reason to keep it here. We should be striving to make wikipedia as professional as possible, and that means we should be aiming for clarity and focus in every article we work on.

Furthermore, unilaterally removing a tag without discussion seems a little inappropriate--especially given that two other people have expressed an opinion contrary to the one you seem to possess. The whole point of the tag is to invite discussion.

--ThinkGreen 09:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the note is not regarding dehydrations due to the process of carbonation, but of the consumtion of Caffiene, which is unrelated to the topic discussed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.194.32 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the CO2 come from for the carbonation?

What is the source of the CO2 used in carbonating beverages such as cola? Anybody know? It someone know for sure it would be a good addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.162.56 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people get too much into that because of all of the many, many tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by carbonated beverages around the world and its affect on global warming. If you stop and think about it, the amounts must be enough to get a surprised whistle out of anyone. Everyday around the world people open literally millions of carbonated beverages. Traumatic (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, at first that sounds like an absurd suggestion, but if the carbon dioxide is produced by the breakdown of mineral material (e.g. limestone) then it COULD add to the global CO2 load. This question of how carbonation is done is very important and a glaring omission from this article.Fredwerner (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A significant proportion of carbonate is sourced from fermentation in alcohol production. Since industrial facilities have the ability to produce surplus quantities of clean CO2. Often alcohol facilities also own bottling for soft drinks due to this. Significant is the cost of CO2 which can be high, and the process of carbonating a soft drink is expensive and is an input cost. So I disagree with the highest carbonation coming from the cheapest products. Carbonation serves very little taste function and is more for mouth feel and a lighter drinking experience.

/I am a bit confused as to why the article seems to place so little focus on liquid carbnonation???/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.228.71 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reference in "Wired" magazine, October 2009

Wow here's a fairly good comprehensive article in October 2009 Wired magazine online edition about the effects of carbonation on human taste senses http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/your-tongue-the-carbon-dioxide-sensor/ Thomas Dzubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of carbonation?

I came to this article hoping to find at least some origin theory for our modern methods of carbonation. I'm a homebrewer, and frequently use bottle conditioning, and I am curious to know if anyone has any idea when that method of carbonation (which seems the most archaic) was first discovered, or where the first known documenation of carbonation occurs. Is there any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.178.154 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC) OK, perhaps then we should add a link to or merge with the other article I found, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonated_water. Sorry for my horrible wiki-fu, I'm off to read the style pages to figure out what I'm doing wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.178.154 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow

This article is too narrow in focus for the title. The term is not just used in the context of soft drinks. For example, what about the serious problem of carbonation in reinforced concrete? When reading the reinforced concrete article I need to know what is meant there by carbonation, but this article gives me no help. Where else should I go? --Remotelysensed (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. To make a start, I copied the first sentence from the reinforced concrete article here, and clarified the ambiguity. — Sebastian 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Resolved

I disagree with the redirect. The reason is that I searched for "Carbonat ion" Now I understand that the proper term is "carbonate ion" instead, but I would have still preferred to see a link towards the molecule carbonate ion. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the list of potential redirects? 2A02:8388:1601:E000:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

方法 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.153.150.104 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonat ion is not, and has never been a redirect. When one enters it in the search, it now says "Did you mean: carbonate ion", which is what the OP needed in the first place. — Sebastian 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonation vs carboxylation

We need to figure out what these mean because the articles are converging, thanks in part to my unwitting efforts. IUPAC does not mention these terms. The main thing is a good source.

Org Syn has 124 mentions of "carboxylation", but they always seem to be decarboxylation. It has about 6 mentions of carbonation, usually of Grignards and the like.

Maybe carboxylation is the making of carboxylic acids from CO2, and is a subset of carbonation, the result of any treatment with CO2 (e.g. in making cyclic carbonates).--Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that carbonation would be the addition of a carboyl group, making it the parent class to both carboxylation and formylation - by extension that definition would have to include acylation, which feels a little odd. I'll see if I can find an actual ref. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm thinking of carbonylation aren't I... --Project Osprey (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think carbonation generally involves the formation of a carbonate and could be viewed as a specific type of carboxylation where the carboxyl group is attached to an oxygen atom.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC) edited by OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and then gave up on chemistry sources (March's organic compendium, Org Syntheses uses both terms almost interchangeably, named reaction book), Encyclopedia Britannica had nothing. But Oxford English Dictionary supports OrganoMetallurgy.

Carboxylation: "The introduction of a carboxyl group into a molecule or compound to form a carboxylic acid or a carboxylate; an instance of this."
Carbonation: "Impregnation or treatment with carbon dioxide; conversion into a carbonate."

cite book|title=Oxford English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2018|url=http://www.oed.com --Smokefoot (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]