This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Polystyrene article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The term polystyrene encompasses a large family of products, with widely different properties. However, the table of data at the beginning of the article seems to give a precise description of only one particular example of polystyrene, probably some GPPS grade.
For example, "elongation at break" is reported to be only 3 - 4% (typical of fragile products like GPPS) whereas many HIPS grades show values as high as 60%.
Similarly, Vicat depends directly on how much white oil is added to the polystyrene and may range from 80 to almost 100ºC. The 90ºC shown in the table is just one of the many possible values.
I propose to remove the items of these table that differ among polystyrene types. Is anybody against? - Hispalois 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think removing the table would be an error, infact given its currently half down the page, i actually thing it should be bumped higher up the page. However clearly it does need to be started that this is an example of a performance of a non-foamed general purpose PS rather than a cover-all for any polymer containing PS! If you removed all the data that can vary between different PS types you would have an empty table Perhaps a second table could be added containing similar data for expanded or foamed PS? See also my comments about ABS/SBR comments. dhutch 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhutch ( talk contribs)
I would prefer to keep the data but qualify it according to PS type. Will Mengarini ( talk) 00:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I realised as always its a case of 'where do you draw the line' however is there any real reason why both ABS and SBR have there own page while HIPS does not? dhutch ( talk) 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on the health/environmental effects of burning/melting polystyrene in a fire, and if disposing of it in that way is environmentally acceptable? 68.230.161.164 ( talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If polystyrene's melting point is 100 degrees C., then the main article could be improved by giving its equivalent in Fahrenheit. Can this temperature be sourced somewhere? 216.99.219.234 ( talk) 06:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This sentance is unclear and could use some clarification. "In the United States, environmental protection regulations prohibit the use of solvents on polystyrene (which would dissolve the polystyrene and de-foam most of foams anyway)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.28.83 ( talk) 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a problem with the section citing reference [6], in the "Environmental concerns and bans" section. Namely, the report cited simply alludes to another report which, in turn, does not properly reference a source that can be verified. Here's the lifted text:
'Despite these commendable improvements, the CIWMB Report finds that “in the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, EPS’s environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum.” The CIWMB Report continues with the recommendation that because there is little, if any, likely avenue of further source reduction, single-use products that cannot be effectively recycled should be replaced with recyclable or compostable materials.'
This is troubling because the claim that aluminium is even worse than styrofoam is controversial, at least where common-sense knowledge is concerned. Aluminium is easily recycled and, as far as I know, even earns revenue for recycling programs as valuable scrap. What should we do to fix this dubious claim? I have no idea what to do about a bogus citation. -- InformationalAnarchist ( talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter Horn 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the following edits:
Just because foam peanuts were originally made by Dow Chemical does not mean they are made out of "styrofoam" (tm). Styrofoam, still made by Dow Chemical, is typically blue and it is put on the sides of houses for insulation purposed. It should not be confused with generic foam products such as cups of peanuts. If the article states peanuts are made of "styrofoam" then a credible reference should be provided. For more information about Styrofoam see: Dow's Website Plhofmei ( talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS), which is different from EPS, is commonly known by the trade name Styrofoam. The voids filled with trapped air give it moderate flexibility, a low density, and a low thermal conductivity. Familiar uses include packing "peanuts" and molded packing material for cushioning fragile items inside boxes[citation needed].
We keep chickens and geese and they seem to find polystyrene foam pretty tasty. Since we eat their eggs, should we be concerned about this unusual dietary component? Is it harmful to the animals? You'd think it would be easy to stop them eating it but we have quite a bit of it around for propagating plants, etc. 121.218.62.245 ( talk) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The statement:
Is tagged as needing a citation. Why is that? It links to the Clean Air Act, which does indeed address CFCs. If nothing else, it should just be clarified that the Act is limited to the US. What possible citation is there? A direct link to the Act - like on the very page it's linked to? -- 208.97.121.178 ( talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Effective January 1, 1994, it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution-- (1) any aerosol product or other pressurized dispenser (other than a medical devise or diagnostic product, including drugs, as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) or a drug delivery system) which contains a substance listed under subsection (b) of section 504; or (2) any plastic foam product (other than a foam insulation product) which contains or is manufactured with a substance listed under subsection (b) of section 504.
I have removed the statement:
"According to the California Coastal Commission, it is now a principal component of marine debris."
until it can be backed up with a valid citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User7984 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you call this in everyday life? is it the same for Americans and for the British?-- camr nag 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The article said "Currently, the majority of polystyrene products are not recycled because of a lack of consumer awareness regarding suitable recycling facilities and collection methods." This claim is far too strong and probably not true. One thing is that there is not very much to be aware of. Many plastics can be recycled, but in most parts of the world there is not much a consumer can do to help it. Even if every consumer had that opportunity, many of them wouldn't do it anyway. Not because of not being "aware", but just not feeling like it. Please feel free to put back the awareness part if you can find a reliable source (which is NOT an organisation heavily subsidized for "raising awareness"). Joepnl ( talk) 20:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a need for sub-section wherein an Expert can share how do you commercially calculate the cost of Thermocol, what is the formula. For example: If a person 'Y' needs to buy cut pieces of rectangular thermocol with L-2in, B-1in, H-6in (100 pieces) how should he/ she calculate the rate?
59.184.18.105 ( talk) 07:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Best regards, Ypschita
I was looking for information on the common housing material known as foil-backed polystyrene. At what temperature does it ignite? I went to my local Home Depot outlet, and recognized what I wanted: foil-backed polystyrene. Styrofoam is a lot less expensive, and a lot easier to ignite. But foil-backed polystyrene looks like it is a lot safer, inasmuch as it is a big block of fiberglass wool that has been dipped in a bath of foamy polystyrene prior to being squeezed (rather loosely) between two sheets of aluminum foil.
Somewhere in Wikipedia there should be an article on foil-backed polystyrene. But I don't know where to find it. Can anybody help? Dexter Nextnumber ( talk) 03:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/plastic-to-oil-fantastic/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.129.133 ( talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In the UK there is a product range called 'Plastic Padding' produced by Henkel Loctite Adhesives Ltd. I have bought 'Chemical Metal' and 'Leak Fix' (which appear identical). It consists of two tubes of chemicals which you mix together to produce a thick paste which sets rock hard in 10 minutes. It is meant to seal or repair metal, stone, wood, china and glass, and can be sanded, machined, drilled, tapped and polished, and is resistant to water, oil, petrol, weak acids, and temperatures up to 160 celsius. It is widely sold in car (automobile) accessory shops for repairing car parts (including cracked cylinder blocks!). Nowhere in the documentation does it explain what exactly it is, but examination of the small print regulatory information reveals that its two components contain styrene monomer and dibenzoyl peroxide. It is therefore merely a way of making polystyrene.
109.144.253.112 ( talk) 21:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Large sections of the article are written in a non-neutral tone to diminish or downplay the environmental, health-related and other criticisms of the product. Much of the article reads as thought it is a response to or defence against such criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.81 ( talk) 23:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
When it is not used to make more EPS, foam scrap can be turned into clothes hangers, park benches, flower pots, toys, rulers, stapler bodies, seedling containers, picture frames, and architectural molding from recycled PS.
Foam cups and other polystyrene products can be safely buried in landfills, since it is as stable as concrete or brick.
Furthermore, styrene is quickly broken down in the air, evaporates quickly in shallow soil and water, and what remains in soil and water can be further broken down by bacteria and microorganisms.
"Polystyrene foam is a major component of plastic debris in the ocean, where it becomes toxic to marine life. Foamed polystyrene blows in the wind and floats on water, and is abundant in the outdoor environment. Weathering by wind, sun, rain, and wave action degrade polystyrene to known and suspected carcinogens, including styrene monomer (SM), styrene dimer (SD) and styrene trimer (ST).<ref> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819234651.htm</ref><ref>Barry, Carolyn. "Plastic Breaks Down In Ocean, After All- And Fast." National Geographic 20 Aug. 2009:</ref><ref> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-uncover-new-ocean-threat-from-plastics-1774337.html Scientists uncover new ocean threat from plastics], The Independent, 20 August 2009.</ref> However, styrene is an organic, naturally occurring substance [balony: not in any substantial amounts] in our environment and to date, no regulatory body anywhere in the world has classified styrene as a known human carcinogen...." The above is semi-alarming given the likely amount of polystyrene in the environment, but we need to be truthful/factual in our reporting. Where are the publications showing degradation, esp large scale degradation of styrene polymers into the monomer? I see a minor Japanese group gave a lecture at an American Chemical Society meeting (these meetings accept all lectures and cannot be considered as any form of validation), and I see that the US magazine National Geographic says something about the same theme. National Geographic is hardly a technical source (no protocols provided, no refereeing, newsy-glitzy (but nice!)) but tends to report on reports. So is there any substantial literature on reversion of polystyrene to styrne. That depolymerization is hugely "uphill". My suspicision is that the literature is very thin and mainly reports about other reports. And the content in this section is driven by environmentally concerned editors who lack the sources. Not that I think pollution by polystyrene is a good thing...-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
RECENTLY THERE WAS AN OPINION CAME UP THAT THE EPS CAN BE RECYCLED TO PRODUCE BONDING MATERIALS WHICH IS AS GOOD AS PATTEX & CAN BE USED IN WOOD ETC., NEED CITATION AND AUTHENTIC VERSION. THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.115.229 ( talk) 09:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is something slightly wrong in the sections "Expanded polystyrene" and "Extruded polystyrene foam". The values given for the thermal resistivity and conductivity should be exactly each other's reciprocal, but they aren't, except very roughly, with errors up to about 40%. No source is given for any of those numbers and I'm unable to guess which of them is verifiable, if any. Judging form what sources generally say, I'm more inclined to distrust the resistivity values of 36 m·K/W and 35 m·K/W given in those sections. These values should be lower, around 30 m·K/W. — Adi Japan 06:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Added references to biodegradation of polystyrene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGIwin ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
@ SageRad and Wcbpolish: What about the section Non-biodegradable? -- Leyo 10:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC) PS. There is also a second part of the above study: doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b02663.
The ´Haynes` reference is not completely described - does anybody know what this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.129.113.82 ( talk) 09:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've partially reverted the edit made by 108.7.171.137 on 20:30, 3 January 2013, citing the following:
It is a news story about how a bird used man-made materials (without harm)in building its nest. Although it does mention "Styrofoam", and mentions the perceived potential for entanglement from the items that the bird used (mentioning fishing line, rope, and electrician's tape), it is difficult to see how a lump of "Styrofoam" could cause entanglement. In fact, expanded polystyrene is quoted by some sources (e.g. [1], [2]) as a suggested nesting material.
Its use in supporting the claim that expanded polystyrene is an entanglement hazard is adding emphasis that is not present in the source, and so is and misrepresenting the source.
Interestingly, the article mentions that the bird (an osprey) had also used a bicycle pedal (complete with reflectors) as part of the nest. I don't expect anyone to suggest that we ban bicycles to protect wildlife... 86.7.23.116 ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The current article covers a family of related but very different materials, resulting in much confusion and vagueness as to which statements apply to which material. Especially in the impressions on lay people without prior knowledge of these things, dangerous misunderstandings are likely to result, as can even be seen in some other comments on this page.
I would like to suggest that the article is split into multiple inter-linked articles on the different Polystyrene-derived materials. Suggested article titles (some of them currently redirects) would be Solid Polystyrene, Polystyrene foam (the kind that is directly blown or sprayed), Expanded Polystyrene (EPS, the kind made by fusing gas-filled beads), Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) and High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS, the kind that has an elastic polymer mixed in for strength).
It would take expert assistance to correctly untangle the various statements in the current article as to which of the split articles they should go into (some will obviously need to appear in more than one, some not).
(Sorry, not logged in at this computer) 2001:16D8:DD73:F0:250:56FF:FE00:5A ( talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to know if "beadboard" (as used in this Article) can be successfully painted with anything. Perhaps other searchers would like to know this, too, as this material is readily available in 4' x 8' sheets and as various sized beams to hobbyists and home owners in American home improvement centers. Perhaps including this information seems far-fetched, but I feel it's important to always keep the most likely reasons why people do searches in mind.
Mykstor (
talk)
19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought polystyrene was an amorphous polymer? If it has no crystal structure it cannot 'melt' and therefore has no melting point. It does flow like a liquid above its Tg but a melt and a glass transition arr two different physical processes. Any objection to me altering this article? Phil the ( talk) 10:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6439410 Bananasoldier ( talk) 07:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Please would someone knowledgeable add information on exactly what solvent is used as an adhesive or cement for polystyrene ? (The article only generalises on "organic solvents") Many thanks ! Darkman101 ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Some more recent review articles would be useful:
These are a few i found with PubMed that could be useful for updating this article. SageRad ( talk) 16:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The inclusion of "Rastra" in the page appears to be for commercial (advertising) purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.243.88.182 ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I search on depron and end up redirected here and there is no reference anywhere in the article to depron. I suspect that there was one but someone removed it. Why can't we just have an article on each thing so people can look things up without a battle through a bunch of stuff they don't want only to find out it isn't even included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.23.127 ( talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! This edit was made two years ago by an anonymous IP editor. In it, the editor changed the words and meaning of a direct quote, and made some other changes. What are your thoughts regarding the edit? Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Shown at 1 gram per Cc This would imply same Wright as water 70.67.169.225 ( talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The safety section refers to the Harvard Center for Risk Assessment. Is this a separate organization to the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis? More importantly, the citation 108 for "Harvard Center for Risk Assessment" is for an article by The McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, with no mention of Harvard University. Beep4BoingEE1 ( talk) 04:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)