Talk:Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

EDTA chelation therapy supported at NIH study

A NIH study with the acronym TACT is supportive of chelation therapy. Review articles are describing this NIH study. Perhaps a PhD scientist or physician could update the main page. "Chelation reduced adverse cardiovascular events in a post myocardial infarction (MI) population. Patients with diabetes demonstrated even greater benefit, with a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients to prevent a cardiac event over 5 years, with a 41% relative reduction in risk of a cardiac event (p = 0.0002)." a pubmed reference is PMID: 27149141

Dangerous substance?

In some countries. Contre the seller Tetra - and also Di - Sodium EDTA . Make "the Safari " , - the public prosecutor and agents. Everyone diligently checks imported food and medicine. Remove everything , - with EDTA content from marche. With consequences for the seller.Smokefood (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

EDTA Kd with different metals

It would be very useful to include the Kd values of EDTA binding to different metals - unfortunatelly I can't find any sources

EDTA bonds

We have an insert on this page that seems to weaken the notion that EDTA bonds to divalent ions. Is one of us going to have to look up association constants for this compound in order to determine specificity? The way the text reads, you would think you could use EDTA to scavenge things like octavalent osmium. Dwmyers 16:21, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was me who added "trivalent", for I had in mind that Iron(III)-EDTA is more stable than Iron(II)-EDTA... Actually I'm not sure where to draw the line; e.g. I never heard of any EDTA-Complex with a more than trivalent metal, but can't exclude the possibility... Maybe you'll just delete the "etc."? Malbi 13:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

tetrasodium edta

Ever since I was old enough to read (which was a pretty young age), I've seen tetrasodium edta in a lot of crap. Is it easily synthesized and not toxic enough a chelating agent in its produced concentrations to worry? In sum, WTF? It's not like I'm worried about additives, but they better at least have a real purpose--how does it preserve foods, and why do we use it instead of something else?

-Todan

EDTA and its derivatives such as Disodium or Tetrasodium are not a preservative per se. They aid preservation by sequestering metal ions in solutions, and impairing bacterial growth effectively "starving" the bugs of neutrients. They make the preservative added more effective. Pedantic I know

tetrasodium edta redirects here, although there seems to be no mention of it in the article. This seems to be happening more and more. It is the worst option and must be wasting a lot of time for a lot of people. A null result, an empty stub, or a stub suggesting relevant articles would all be better for users.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Scrabble trivia

Is there a source for the longest Scrabble word assertion? Isopropyl 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

EDTA causes lead to be relocated to the brain?

In the Uses section, it is stated, "Note that EDTA causes lead to be relocated in the human body into the brain so its use as an antidote has been discontinued." I have never read this, is there a citation of any sort? George100 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

blade 2

Can someone clean-up the "blade 2" reference in the trivia section (if it's even necessary to have this information in the acticle)? I know there's a movie, but isn't there a video game and also a TV series. Should it be "blade 2" or "Blade 2"? Also, a link to the movie/game/TV series would be useful. I've never seen that movie or the TV show or played the game otherwise I would change it myself. dq 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Recycling Lead Acid Batteries

The main article is seeking a citation for this - There is a good page on it at http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/electrics/elc_edta.html if that helps. I have no idea how to add citations so somebody else may want to alter it.

Lawrie 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

EDTA is also used in some fertilizers, to keep iron in solution and available for plant uptake.

IUPAC nomenclature

If anyone is interested, the IUPAC nomenclature should be 2-(carboxy(2-(carboxy(1-hydroxy-2-oxoethyl)amino)ethyl)amino)acetic acid, though I might be wrong. Just incase anyone is interested.

24.136.88.151 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is EDTA vegan? 66.30.67.235 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• As a synthetic molecule that doesn't occur in nature, EDTA is vegan, as are most preservative ingredients. 130.126.229.231 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is relevant info regaurding the toxicity of this compound being removed from this page?

User Edgar removed my findings on EDTA that were obtained from US government servers and are publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. This information was removed from the page citing a copyright violation? How does information reposted from a public government server constitute a copyright violation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to suppress information regarding this compound and its increasing use in a variety of food products as a preservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianocmedia (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The material you added is a direct copy of text published by the International Journal of Toxicology and is copyrighted. PubMed has been given the rights to reproduce the abstract on its webpages. Wikipedia does not have the rights do so. Feel free to summarize the results and add it to the text, if you like. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I understand now. Thank you for clearing up the copyright issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianocmedia (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Two different drugs called EDTA

Check out this FDA article. According to them, the chelator for lead is "Calcium Disodium Versenate" with the chemical name of edetate calcium disodium. The other is simply edetate disodium, marketed as Endrate. The FDA says that the former, edetate disodium, has caused 11 deaths. I think we need to make clear the distinction on this page, to clarify and help avoid future deaths. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical properties?

I think the article should talk about the physical properties of EDTA, such as color, solubility in water and in oil at various pH levels and temperatures, and perhaps even boiling and melting points. The solubility is especially important, because of the wide use of EDTA and its toxicity. -Pgan002 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestions that we revise this report some more. The term EDTA means different things to different people. To the public and technicians, EDTA refers variety of salts (ethylenediaminetetracetates) that are used in application-specific formulations. To a hard-core chemist, EDTA is an tetracarboxylic acid. The folky approach is vague but useful to more readers, the chemical approach is rigorous but less interestint to readers. All forms are colourless and most are pretty insoluble in petroleum-based oils (of course the answer depends on the kind of oil). It's not very toxic (although determined idiots will figure out ways of hurting themselves): oral LD50 value (rat) for Na2EDTA is 2.0 – 2.2 g/kg. So you gotta eat a lot and contend with diarrhea.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I am starting to edit this article, focusing mainly on converting lists to paragraphs. But these sections look problematic: "Widespread use of EDTA and its slow removal under many environmental conditions has led to its status as the most abundant anthropogenic compound in many European surface waters. River concentrations in Europe are reported as 10-100 μg/L, and lake concentrations are in the 1-10 μg/L range. EDTA concentrations in U.S. groundwater receiving wastewater effluent discharge have been reported at 1-72 μg/L, and EDTA was found to be an effective tracer for effluent, with higher concentrations of EDTA corresponding to a greater percentage of reclaimed water in drinking water production wells.

EDTA is not degraded or removed during conventional wastewater treatment. However, an adjustment of pH and sludge residence time can result in almost complete mineralization of EDTA. A variety of microorganisms have been isolated from water, soils, sediments and sludges that are able to completely mineralize EDTA as a sole source of carbon, nitrogen and energy.

Recalcitrant chelating agents such as EDTA are an environmental concern predominantly because of their persistence and strong metal chelating properties. The presence of chelating agents in high concentrations in wastewaters and surface waters has the potential to remobilize heavy metals from river sediments and treated sludges, although low and environmentally relevant concentrations seem to have only a very minor influence on metal solubility. Low concentrations of chelating agents may either stimulate or decrease plankton or algae growth, while high concentrations always inhibit activity. Chelating agents are nontoxic to many forms of life on acute exposure; the effects of longer-term low-level exposure are unknown. EDTA at elevated concentrations is toxic to bacteria due to chelation of metals in the outer membrane. EDTA ingestion at high concentrations by mammals changes excretion of metals and can affect cell membrane permeability.

Other more biodegradable chelators are effective and available. For example, EDDS (S, S'-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid) and NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid).

• EDTA played a role in the O.J. Simpson trial when one of the blood samples collected from Simpson's estate was found to contain traces of the compound. This was used by the defense to indicate that the sample had been planted from one of the vials collected during the investigation. Prosecution claimed EDTA might have appeared in the sample as a result of eating McDonald's foods (either through bloodstream or, more likely, via contamination of blood flowing over the hand used in grabbing the food)."

--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the blood on the sock in the OJ murder case was contaminated in an innocent fashion. Yes, EDTA is present in food and laundry detergent, but at very low concentrations, and EDTA is very soluble in water. (a washed sock might have an exceedingly tiny amount of EDTA on it, but far less than would have been caused by using blood collected in an EDTA-containing sample vial.) Whether the amount of EDTA normally present in a person's blood would show a significant concentration, I don't know. The sample vials used to hold collected blood contain a gel at the bottom with EDTA included; the function of the EDTA is to chelate the magnesium ions present, and thus prevent the blood from clotting. The police wouldn't have known this, and presumably thought they could undetectably incriminate OJ by taking blood from the sample OJ had given the police. This was discussed during the trial. Curiously, although EDTA was and is used in many analytical labs, they had to develop a specific quantitative test for it during the trial. 67.5.213.48 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia article on E.D.T.A.[ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid]

in the above article,Uses in Medicine,Last entry is Use in Thalassemia Major to remove excess iron.Pl.indicate the reference of source i.e journal etc.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.195.147 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Copied from WP:RDS Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A red link of ....

Disodium edetate CAS no. [6381-92-6] has been added based on the following info http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Disodium+edetate+International+Pharmacopoeia+site%3Awww.who.int&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=fNPyysaHsgc --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://moldb.nihs.go.jp/jp/DetailList_en.aspx?submit=Detail(en)&keyword=Disodium+Edetate+Hydrate --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/aan/aanchem.pdf --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=E0399%7CSIAL&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This chemical is used as a food additive in the one shown in the page of http://www.kewpie.com.cn/mayonnaise/product03.htm --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC) The company's webpage needs to be verified, as the company's address on the product label of mine is different to the one shown at their website.--222.64.218.82 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://product.cheminfo.gov.cn/C0217/C02170101.htm --222.64.218.82 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All the related names are confusing, especially for the food additives http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/monitoringandsurveillance/nuttab2006/onlineversionintroduction/onlineversion.cfm?&action=getFood&foodID=14B10088 --222.64.218.82 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://legislation.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/1043D26D116E5313CA2574A50017C5A4 --222.64.218.82 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

pKa values

I just edited the pKa values. Nevertheless, the values deserves a few comments: The two lower values (0.0 and 1.5) are concidered less reliable according to my source (Harris, D.C. "Quantitative Chemical Analysis", 7^th ed., W. H. Freeman and Compagny, New York, 2007).
Another source (the Combined Chemical Directory 11.2, Taylor & Francis Group 2009) states the following values at 20 °C: 0.26; 0.96; 2.02; 2.66; 6.21 and 10.31 - all in 0.1 M KNO₃.
CLHA (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence on this matter citing a different reference. --Leyo 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bond-Line Formula

The bond-line formula shown in the png at the upper right is missing the central double bond. "Enthylene" implies a double bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.86.218 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe "ethylene" in the non-IUPAC name referes to ethane missing two H atoms. "Ethylene" is not used in the IUPAC name. Analogous: methylene chloride (dichloromethane, CH₂Cl₂) contains no double bound but has two H atoms less than methane.]CLHA (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ball-and-stick diagram

Didnt know where to put this question. Why does the current picture have dashes between the oxygens on two of the pairs but not on the other two pairs (out of the four pairs), or are they just not visible? also what do these dashes mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.80.160 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good observation. The ball-and-stick diagram does not show EDTA itself, but rather the dianion (two of the four carboxylic acid groups are depicted as carboxylate anions). I'll leave a note with the editor that created the image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the exact structure as determined by X-ray crystallography. If you go to the image description page, you can see the reference.

This was a tricky image to make. Two of the four carboxyl groups are protonated, while the other two are deprotonated, having donated their protons to the basic amino nitrogen atoms.

One of the two undissociated carboxyl groups has a hydrogen atoms that is obscured by the rest of the molecule.

I'll make a Jmol for you guys to see what I mean, and I'll try and make an image in which you can see the hidden hydrogen atom.

Ben (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the protons on nitrogen now. I didn't catch that. Thanks for the explanation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Section needs a rewrite

I noticed that this section appears to be one large quote from a text, and have moved it here until some who knows what this is about can rewrite it. A13ean (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

===IEX Ion Exchange Chromatography===

In the book from Amersham Biosciences/GE Healthcare, Ion Exchange Chromatography & Chromatofocusing - Principles and Methods, page50. "Metal chelators like EDTA & EGTA, are often used in buffers as metal chelators and can be used with IEX chromatography. EDTA and EGTA contain several carboxylic acids groups that may interact with anion exchangers. During anion exchange separations, EDTA and EGTA can concentrate as a band on the column and elute during a salt gradient. Both molecules absorb UV and will appear as a peak or as background noise in the chromatogram.

IUPAC name

2,2',2' ',2' ' '-(ethane-1,2-diylbis(azanetriyl))tetraacetic acid - ChemDraw shorter than that one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.130.174 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid → EDTA

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid → EDTA – Everyone who talks about this substance calls it EDTA (saying each letter), and no one uses its full name. It is always abbreviated only as EDTA. This very common substance is widely used in science and even known to people on the edge of science, and layman audiences would definitely call this EDTA. Since this substance is EDTA both when discussed verbally and when written, it should also be the title of its Wikipedia article. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)} Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose With special exceptions (water), articles on chemical compounds are titled in accord with chemical nomenclature. "EDTA" is only an abbreviation (the lay public would obviously prefer to call almost any chemical substance by an abbreviation rather than hazard pronunciation; this compound is not particularly known to the lay public); "EDTA" appropriately redirects to this article. There is no reason to change the title. Blacksun1942 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• The statement "articles on chemical compounds are titled in accord with chemical nomenclature" is simply untrue. Many articles on chemicals are titled using common names, including abbreviations, and WP:MOSCHEM recommends using common names where appropriate (consistent with WP:COMMONNAME). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per BS42, and similar article occurring at Lysergic acid diethylamide instead of LSD, which is widely known to laymen audiences as LSD. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Understandable request but the problem is the definition of EDTA. Which anion, which salt, etc. While we seek to ensure that Wikipedia is approachable, that does not mean that we shield readers from a tiny bit of rigor in order to be clearcut. Also I cannot imagine how the article would be any easier for a non-technical reader if we change the title. --Smokefoot (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what answers to such questions as "which anion", "which salt", etc., are provided by the full name "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid" but not by the acronym "EDTA"; both names refer to the same molecule. Therefore I don't see how the question you're raising is relevant to this move request. As for your second remark, it is the article content, not the article title, that does or doesn't make an article "[easy] for a non-technical reader"; therefore you seem to be missing the point. Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for the Wikipedia guidelines for choosing article titles. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support. It appears to me that the opposing arguments presented above are contrary to well-established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See below:

• The "General Rule" stated in WP:Naming conventions (chemistry) is a direct quote from WP:NC:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. [emphasis added]

To suggest that the word "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic" is known even to a majority of English speakers who are familiar with the term "EDTA" is highly doubtful. To suggest that the title "Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid" makes linking to this article no less "easy and second nature" than "EDTA" strains credulity; we cannot reasonably expect our readers to be familiar with the full chemical name, much less know how to spell it correctly.

• WP:ACRONYMTITLE states:

Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject.... A useful test to determine what an abbreviation usually refers to can be done by checking abbreviations.com and finding the relative usage. If it is found that a particular subject is overwhelmingly denoted by an unambiguous acronym, the article title on that subject can be expressed as the acronym.

Checking the entry for EDTA at abbreviations.com (here) shows that the only expansion of more than trivial importance is the chemical substance that is the subject of this article.

• Regarding the counterexample of LSD presented above: Acknowledged, but that title is arguably contrary to policy as well. In any case, there are numerous examples congruent with this proposal; see DNA, RNA, HIV, MDMA, and DDT. Furthermore, there are numerous other molecules and substances that would be similarly titled, but for the fact that their acronyms are shared with other commonly-known expansions, which makes it necessary for the acronyms go to a disambiguation page instead—but that is not the case with EDTA.

In sum, it appears to me that the only conclusion supported by Wikipedia policy in this case is to proceed with the move to "EDTA" as proposed. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• First, I recommend a slightly more nuanced and considerate way of dealing with colleagues. Other peoples' views are "flatly absurd", your preference is "only conclusion" and your edit note "the arguments against are silly". Some of us disagree, respectfully. As to my technical question, what is "EDTA"? That niggling question is part of the problem, at least for me.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "nuanced and considerate" (@Smokefoot) — You're right, and I apologize for my earlier excessively strident tone. I've gone back and edited my remarks accordingly. — Jaydiem (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "EDTA" is completely opaque, likely to be confused with EDSA. The full title is immediately clear as an acid. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• (1) Perhaps you could provide some evidence or explanation to support your claim that EDTA is "likely to be confused with EDSA"? (2) Although it's true that the full name of the EDTA molecule contains the word "acid", the same is true of RNA (ribonucleic acid) and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and yet in none of these cases does this provide any meaningful insight into the molecule's significance. Moreover, as with those other articles, the full expansion of the acronym is provided in the very first sentence of the article, so any benefit to be had from seeing it is certainly not impeded by using the acronym as the article title. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems borderline to me. Neither name would be recognised by many in the population at large, in my opinion, and nothing above indicates otherwise. A completely different scenario to LSD ( also the subject of a current RM, see Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide#Move request: Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD ) where the short form is widely recognised. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose The page EDTA already redirects to the current page, which is the proper name of the compound. I can't think of one good reason why an acronym like "EDTA" should replace a proper chemical name. --IJBall (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: By proper name here I guess you mean the correct name rather than proper in the technical sense. But they are both correct in terms of WP:AT, which many, many notices asked you to read before contributing to an RM discussion. Your personal preference does matter, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that your argument simply boils down to this preference. Andrewa (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Hardly. The "scientific" name is the "correct" name. That is what the name of the article should be on Wikipedia. And that is aside from the strong disambiguation reasons for leaving this title as is. There is zero justification for a 'move' of this article, especially when one considers that EDTA already redirects here. --IJBall (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Three additional comments:

1) The one thing that we want the title to be is (relatively) unambiguous. Ambiguity is the problem here: "EDTA" means many things. For those supporting the title change, it probably means the fully deprotonated species EDTA^4- which is rarely observed but its the component that often binds to metals. The form "EDTA" is often sold as are various salts of H₂EDTA^2-, say Na₂H₂EDTA or CaH₂EDTA or Na₄EDTA. These are the salts one adds to sequester metal ions (often binding as HEDTA^-). Or maybe people intend the corresponding anions H₂EDTA^2- or EDTA^4- (most Wiki-chem articles are on compounds, but some are on ions). Or maybe it means the tetraacid (which technologists usually write H₄EDTA) My point is that the current title and name are unambiguous. For EDTA as the title, one would almost need to add the phrase "you know what we mean - its that stuff that somehow binds metals in various forms".

2 )In contrast LSD is unambiguous - it means only one compound, not its conjugate acids or bases or ions.

3) It is also very likely that someone will write an article on these other derivatives of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, then editors will find themselves in the same quandry - do we call that article EDTA (it would be closer in meaning to what non-technical people probably think is "EDTA". --Smokefoot (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Food additive

I read the article looking for information about EDTA as a food additive. I was looking for tinned Ful medames in the UK and every brand and recipe I looked at included EDTA as a food additive to help the beans retain their colour. The label stated 'EDTA, for colour retention'. The EU number for the calcium/sodium salt is E385. 82.38.135.178 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I too would like to request more information on "calcium disodium EDTA" as used as a food additive. Can anyone expand the article? 2600:1000:BE0C:E14:999A:C84B:5CFA:BC27 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is no one addressing this issue? "Calcium disodium EDTA" (a very common food additive) is still mentioned nowhere in the text of this article, although this article redirects from Calcium disodium EDTA. Please fix this situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

REVISITED : Requested move: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid → EDTA

To add to the above discussion, in the literature (see e.g my recent edit today) ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt is also referred to as EDTA. Should attention be drawn to this fact in the article's lede? LookingGlass (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes EDTA is the common name so support move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support such a move as more friendly to a general readership (ie folks reading canned food labels and such rather than persons with a specialized interest in chemistry). To pull in a broad sampling of views on such, perhaps someone could open a general RfC to discuss whether a page move should be formally proposed again. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s.— FWIW, WP:TECHNICAL leads with, "Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.", and, "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience.". 'WP:ASTONISH' might be worthy of some consideration in this as well (what usage is inspiring most readers to seek out information here in the first place?). --75.188.199.98 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya' know, "It is particularly important for the first section ... to be understandable to a broad readership. Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about, and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they don't already know the topic in detail." (WP:EXPLAINLEAD), probably has relevance here as well. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Text deletion

With respect to this text

"Non-curative minimal reversal of atherosclerosis has been claimed by therapies with iv ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt (EDTA). EDTA has been combined with antibiotic tetracycline (comET) and has been tested with respect to infectious blood nanobacteria in therapy in patients with documented coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary artery calcium scores decreased during ComET therapy trial in most CAD patients inferring regression of calcified coronary artery plaque volume."

This is supported by a small primary source. We need high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Has been restored. However extra ordinary claims do require extra ordinary evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The text you cite here, and insist on deleting, is, as you will see, comprised of two parts. The first part states: "Non-curative minimal reversal of atherosclerosis has been claimed". The second part states: "EDTA has been combined with antibiotic tetracycline and has been tested with respect to infectious blood nanobacteria". So, assuming your objection is substantive and not merely pedantic, are you saying there has been no work with EDTA and atherosclerosis/nanobacteria or that merely better references to this fact are required? In both cases however the primary point I am making is that there are OTHER medical uses/relevance/application of EDTA to those cited in the article and which you appear to insist remain exclusive cited as the ONLY uses/potential uses/investigated uses of the substance. My intrest is with EDTA so with the fact of its test/investigations/research as distinct to its use by the medical profession. I am not interested in a wiki rewrite of MedOnline or whatever but of a wikipedia article on EDTA. I hope this clarifies.
p.s I have taken the liberty of deleting the < ref > code from the citation you pasted here as it breaks the flow of the page appearing as it does at the bottom of ALL the comments here rather than just this one to which it solely applies. If you wish to add it back please simply rtemove the code when doing so. I have also edited the subject line of this comment so as to make it specific to the matter at hand i.e the deletion of the text rather than its addition. Adding text is merely the lifeblood of wiki. Deleting text is something else. Thank you.LookingGlass (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: "p.s" ... LookingGlass, Doc James, for-future-reference the {{Reflist-talk}} template (or one of its many redirects) may prove useful in handling such going forward. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Noticed stray numbered ref link at bottom of page; implementing {{talk ref}}. --A Fellow Editor (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Know what I mean A Fellow Editor!?! Thanks. LookingGlass (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029103725/http://www.chem.utk.edu/~chem319/Experiments/Exp6.pdf to http://www.chem.utk.edu/~chem319/Experiments/Exp6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Boldfacing of redirect targets

The initial instances of the terms disodium EDTA and calcium disodium EDTA have been boldfaced as redirect target terms (i.e. as terms in an article or section targeted by redirect pages; e.g. Disodium EDTA and Calcium disodium EDTA)—a practice recommended by WP:R#ASTONISH, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses, and MOS:BOLD#Article title terms—so as to help orient readers arriving from redirect links elsewhere and as an example of best practice inline with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term that's redirected to the article or one of its sub-sections, whether the term appears in the lead or not.

— MOS:BOLD

Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

item

Are you sure about Cr, I think it is another element

--the good K-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.28.44 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2018‎ (UTC)

Yes. The cited ref at the next sentence (talkign about the usefulness of the method) supports it. DMacks (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Fmuenz.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: EDTA might prevent covid-19

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720312007 Medical Hypotheses

Volume 144, November 2020, 110027

Title: Why the lower reported prevalence of asthma in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 validates repurposing EDTA solutions to prevent and manage treat COVID-19 disease

--ee1518 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

‘Alternative medicine’ edit explanation

I removed this sentence from the alternative medicine section: “Although, U.S. medical associations — including the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) are dedicated to training doctors in the use of chelation therapy to improve hardening of the arteries and other chronic degenerative issues.” The justification for removal is that not only is the material is unsourced, it also implies that chelation therapy is effective against cardiovascular disease by saying that “U.S. medical associations” are training doctors in chelation therapy. Using the term “U.S. medical association” alone when referring to the ACAM, although true, is possibly deceptive because it implies that the ACAM is close to the medical establishment and likely a respected institution, without providing much information about it. In terms of how respected it is, it doesn’t appear to have a Wikipedia page, but here’s some text from the page Chelation therapy: “In 1998, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged that the web site of the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and a brochure they published had made false or unsubstantiated claims. In December 1998, the FTC announced that it had secured a consent agreement barring ACAM from making unsubstantiated advertising claims that chelation therapy is effective against atherosclerosis or any other disease of the circulatory system.” Also on that page: “According to the findings of a 1997 systematic review, EDTA chelation therapy is not effective as a treatment for coronary artery disease and this use is not approved in the United States by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” Notably, that page also contains a pro- ACAM paragraph, but given the preponderance of well- cited material on that page against chelation therapy, that paragraph seems less like a counterpoint than evidence that proponents of chelation therapy as a method to treat cardiovascular disease have added deceptive material to several Wikipedia pages.

The reason I wrote this whole paragraph was to have a solid bulwark to stand on to explain this removal, both so that bystander editors will understand why this sentence was removed, and, more importantly, as a defense should the pseudosciencechelationists, who appear to have some real power on Wikipedia, challenge this edit and attempt to restore either the original sentence or some more well- disguised version. MaroonDichotomy (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Edta

ronitkumar079035@gmail 157.47.15.9 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any research on Effects of EDTA on treatment of Multiple System Atrophy (MSA) disease? Iron sedimentation and aggregation in glial cells of cerebellum and brain stem is probable ethiology of this disorder. Study effects of ATH434 on MSA is recruited in some hospitals now. Parsman~fawiki (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Use as pesticide

Recently slug pellets using iron phosphate and EDTA have come onto the market, the claimed mechanism is the chelating agent causes the otherwise insoluble iron ions to kill slugs that ingest them from iron poisoning. Perhaps someone could write a bit under uses for this. 90.247.227.132 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Use in extraction of lithium from brine

Someone (more knowledgable than I) should add a mention of the potentially significant new use described in the citation below: the extraction of lithium (and as a side effect, magnesium) from brine. Yong, M., Tang, M., Sun, L. et al. Sustainable lithium extraction and magnesium hydroxide co-production from salt-lake brines. Nat Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01435-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.161.38 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)