Talk:Formaldehyde

History? Discovery?

Is it just me or is there nothing about its discovery or historical uses anywhere? Fairly unusual for instrumental substances. No doubt someone will inevitably want this information preserved enough to include. Hehehehe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterraptor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Verification failed

It is said: "Formaldehyde" was first used as a generic trademark in 1893 following a previous trade name, "formalin"., and it is referenced with the Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/formalin article, and it is said in there, that the trademark emerged in 1893 was 'formalin' not 'formaldehyde'. But if you compare it with the Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/formaldehyde article, you will see, that the word 'formaldehyde' emerged in 1872, and it isn't specified that the word was a trademark (neither generic nor simple). Please figure this out.

References

Tosha Langue (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I came on here to say much the same thing. Yes, the Merriam-Webster link only claims that formalin is a genericized trademark, not formaldehyde. Etymology online more-or-less agrees although they cite 1869 as the earliest recorded usage rather than 1872. Google n-grams also more-or-less agrees -- it finds a few much earlier references, but its dating for early rare words is unreliable so some of those are probably spurious. However, it is clear that it was well-established long before 1893.

The etymology is very obvious to a chemist, because the names are systematically structured: formaldehyde is the aldehyde of formic acid, just as acetaldehyde is the aldehyde of acetic acid, propionaldehyde is the aldehyde of propionic acid, benzaldehyde is the aldehyde of benzoic acid, and so on. This "aldehyde" naming convention was started by Justus von Liebig in 1833. (And formic acid was so named in 1791, because it was first discovered in ants.)

Long story short, this claim is false and must be deleted. 122.200.24.11 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

NFPA

How is that possible for formaldehyde: Reactivity = 0 and is CORROSIVE? Tosha Langue (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Tosha Langue Check out the NFPA 704 article. The Fire Diamond's "reactivity" is more about "how likely it is to burn or blow up when heated or hit". It [probably just the 37% solution] is okay in this regard. When it comes to what formalin does to skin, it certainly counts as "corrosive". Artoria2e5 🌉 00:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ATMOchem25

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rajab Mammadov (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sortizrosario.

— Assignment last updated by Sortizrosario (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Siri and “naturally occurring”

The "Siri knowledge" summary for formaldehyde reads (in its entirety) "naturally occurring organic compound" which is not a great summary. "Naturally occurring" is just one of many attributes of formaldehyde, of course, and it's a problematic attribute to single out because many in the general public wrongly equate natural with safe. So it's true but at the same time misleading. I think that summary should be rewritten. Dvdtoy (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Understandable idea, but many chemists will quickly point out that the list of naturally occurring toxic substances is very long. And, at risk of sounding arrogant, the public needs to comprehend that its all about dosage (someone once said that more eloquently). My 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Call me cynical but I'm afraid that the public is never going to understand all kinds of things. New, ignorant humans are created and misguided every moment. Dvdtoy (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course there are plenty of naturally occurring toxic substances and vice versa, but unfortunately "natural" is also a marketing term nowadays heavily invested with connotations of promoting health not toxicity. Dvdtoy (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how that pertains to this article. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I arrived at this article after reading that EPA will relax/raise its threshold for reporting formaldehyde and it occurred to me that other non-experts like myself may come to this page too while the policy change is in the news to get a sense of whether to be concerned. I was afraid that a brief description that emphasizes "naturally occurring" is all that curious non-experts would see. But I see I'm in the minority so I'll move on. Dvdtoy (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dvdtoy: I see. This article here has some mention of formaldehyde's natural occurrence, first occurring at the 7th sentence and only being mentioned three times throughout the article. Siri's emphasis on it being naturally occurring in a 1-line summary is an issue at Siri's end, rather than Wikipedia's. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about that. Unfortunate that Siri does the summarizing but formats its summary in a way that looks (to me) like Wikipedia content. Nothing to be done then. Dvdtoy (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)