Talk:Beeswax

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beeswax article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

section[edit]

Does anyone have any sources on the "negative ionization" of a beeswax candle? TheSPY 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)TheSPY[reply]

I googled and found this:

Beeswax, derived from flowers and bees, is nontoxic, naturally aromatic, and when burned emits beneficial negative ions that actually help purify the air. (metroactive.com)

bogdan 14:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched extensively for scientific research or studies on the "negative ionization" of beeswax and have found nothing. I have found lots of people making the same claim using the same words but no proof.

Ya I market beeswax products and I would love to set the record straight on the negative ions thing. I have heard that it emits air cleansing positive ions or that the beeswax ions neutralize ions released by electronics. I also heard that burning beeswax emits a spectrum identical to that of the sun. Please set the record straight. I have had an unsatisfactory time searching for the answers. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This talk of "negative ionization" needs to begin with the nature of the molecule to be ionized. Which ionic compounds are released by the candle? This matters much more than the charge of the molecule. Consider than in any natural product, you will have both negatively charged, neutral, and positively charged chemicals.

Moreover, the temperature of a candle's flame is about 1900 K. The surface of the sun is 5800 K. The temperature has a huge effect on the color of the light produced, so no, a beeswax (or any) candle does not mimic the spectrum of the sun. Drummstikk (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I have heard from multiple sources both marketers of products and otherwise that it was a Japanese study which found that the wax emits ions. However, apparently the study was never put online. Can someone find it and put it online? This debate has never been settled. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to confirm or deny. Can burning beeswax have any effect on the pituitary gland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracoshempemporium (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your pituitary gland could be modulated by burning wax, you would be an easily perturbed animal, indeed. No, your pituitary is typically only modulated by mammalian hormones, thankfully few of which you will find in insects or their products. Drummstikk (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try this study from Germany: http://candles.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2007Okometricstudysummary.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:4000:7F37:5D90:64A9:9C17:AC35 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filtering beaswax[edit]

Look in Beesource.com It contains more info than you want to know. Shoefly 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the use you wish to put your wax, I find that filtering through nylon stocking works just fine for both honey and wax. For the wax, it is satisfactory and inexpensive as there is no way to remove the wax that will stay in the nylon stocking when it cools. (user:CaptL) 20:57 01 February 2006 (PST)

Removed source[edit]

Removed this source from the article because it doesn't seem to reference anything. Dumping it here:

Source: Characterization of Fine Particle Emissions from Burning Church Candles Environmental Science Technology, 33 (14), 2352-2362, 1999 Web Release Date: June 4, 1999

--Rifleman 82 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation[edit]

Who stole from who: [1] The source seems to read identically in key passages. Both articles have information unique to themselves, so I can't tell which came first. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula[edit]

I removed "The empirical formula for beeswax is C₁₅H₅₁COOC₃₀H₆₁" because, first, it is not an empirical formula at all, and second, it gives the false impression that the wax is a pure compound and not a mixture of several. --24.34.222.177 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is just being used as a "simple expression" of the atoms etc. This was a referenced piece of information you removed. Tell me please. How do the bees "mix" their wax? You do understand where BEES wax comes from don't you? I'm reverting your edit.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bees mix their wax by secreting two miscible compounds into the same space, similarly to how you "mix' the enzymes and salts that end up in saliva, or how you "mix" the cells, salts, amino acids, lipids, sugars, and thousands of other molecules that end up in blood. Are you suggesting that beeswax is a pure compound? It clearly is not -- I mean, it has waxy properties yet smells of volatile compounds. That should tell you right off the bat it's a mixture.

I am curious about the categories listed in the table. What is the difference between the esters listed and the alcohol esters? Most esters are produced from an organic acid and and alcohol -- but I'm not an organic chem expert so I may be misunderstanding. Is there a chemical difference between the alcohol esters and the monoesters listed in the table? Drummstikk (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the formula C₁₅H₅₁ simply doesn't make sense. There are way too many hydrogens. Hydrocarbons have a general formula of C_nH_2n+2. For a hydrocarbon of fifteen carbon atoms, there are thirty two hydrogens. This is the maximum number of hydrogen. No compound of 15 carbons can have more than 32 hydrogens. I believe the 51 in the formula should be 31.Ctchou (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Apis wax[edit]

What is wax made by non-Apis bees called? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beeswax isn't it 213.94.179.251 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honey to wax[edit]

The article seems to indicate that the honey is transformed into wax, in the same way nectar was transformed into honey. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the bees consume honey to fuel their metabolic processes, which include the synthesization of fatty acids and alcohols? In other words, we don't say a cow "turns grass into milk" or we "turn meat into hair." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List(s) of uses[edit]

See this diff.

Copied from my talk page:

Just curious about how you would propose to deal with the uses of beeswax. Beeswax is representative of many articles on natural materials. Approximately 10,000 tons of beeswas are produced annually, and I am guessing that people have been using beeswax for many centuries. So how long a list and how minute an application merits inclusion? My question is partly rhetorical, but also real: it is impossible to list all applications of materials and by doing so, one detracts from the readability of an article. In general, readability is improved with paragraph format which builds in priority to notable applications. But you are experienced here and I would be interested in how a non-technology editor views such articles. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The various uses take advantage of various properties of beeswax, as food, pharm, adhesive, stiction-promoting/lubricant, preservative (e.g. water barrier), illumination fuel, and so forth. Those two sections, Beeswax#Uses_as_a_product and Beeswax#Historical use were a cluster of disorganized items; now there is a bit more sense to the order.

"Lists may be embedded in articles." In this case, I believe the list is more readable than paragraphs would be. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the persons point rhetorically. Whenever uses are given for an object on wikipedia it should state "some reported uses for [beeswax] are: ... They are just trying to make the point that people will come up with new uses for it and the phrasing should be open ended so that the reader does not get the impression that beeswax is only for traditional uses and not for innovation. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reference to beeswax's superiority over petroleum jelly needs to be removed, as the study quoted does not compare beeswax to petroleum jelly. From the study's abstract: "Background: Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands is very common in dental laboratory technicians due to frequent contact with various irritants. Barrier creams (HS) are often avoided because a tight grip of tools and small objects is necessary; furthermore dental objects must not be contaminated by HS. In this study the efficacy of HS applied during working hours was compared to skin care products (HP) applied only after work.

Method: 2 popular commercial HS (HS-1, HS-2) and 2 moisturizers containing urea and beeswax respectively (HP-1, HP-2) were evaluated in 5 laboratories by a total of 192 technicians."

The comparison is between products used to prevent contact dermatitis of the hand, versus products designed to heal hands after dermatitis is present. This is not a direct comparison between two products used in the same way under the same conditions. Thank you. 75.94.24.136 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitcomb experiment requires citation[edit]

Everyone cites the Whitcomb 1946 experiment for the 6.66 to 8.80 pound number. This has produced numerous misconceptions, including many people claiming it takes 8 pounds of honey to draw a comb, or that it takes 8 pounds of honey to make the comb for 1 pound of honey, i.e., that you'll get 9 times as much honey if you reuse comb.

I've tried to clear up the simple misinterpretations by citing how much wax the bees use to store honey. Unfortunately, some sources cite 22 pounds of honey in 1 pound of wax; some sources cite 50g of beeswax left after extracting 5kg of honey; and some sources cite 100g of wax can hold up to 4kg of honey. These range from a wax-to-honey ratio of 22:1 to 4000:1. I have used the conservative number which, even assuming the 8 pound number, suggests a cost of 0.36 pounds of honey to store 1 pound of honey.

Crowder's experiment deployed five top bar hives and five Langstroth hives, crushing the comb from the top bar hives and reusing the Langstroth combs. The top bar hive produced 80% as much honey, but 600% as much wax, suggesting a ratio of 30:1. Crowder has elsewhere cited 75%-80% ("20%-25% less"), so I specified 24-30. At 30:1 and 22:1, this means each comb contains the same amount of honey as is used to produce 660 empty combs. Bees do build comb much faster than they can fill it with nectar and honey; I suspect they also gain material and energy from pollen (protein), but that is irrelevant to the discussion, plus conjecture.

Without an actual explanation of Whitcomb's experiment anywhere and no primary source asserting this, I refuse to accept it as valid citation. I have asked Crowder for an explanation of his method posted in a public place (Web site, mailing list, book). I don't know what to do with Whitcomb's experiment, since it's continuously cited wrong and the primary source is inaccessible. I can at least show Crowder directly stating his honey and wax production, and a secondary account of Crowder's method; this is only slightly better, and I am trying to get a primary source. --John Moser (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this book may be the original source. It's un-cited on the blog I linked to. I will acquire the book and see what it actually says. --John Moser (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the book. Source updated. --John Moser (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 17 is a commercial link[edit]

Problem with Reference 17: edit? remove?

Beeswax article section 4: Uses Last paragraph, Line 7, which reads: Pure beeswax can also be used as a "surfboard wax" (17).

Selecting "surfboard wax" opens a small info box overlying this paragraph with information about surfboard wax.

In section 7: References, Item 17: "Raw beeswax uses" MoreNature

"Raw beeswax uses" is an active link to a COMMERCIAL WEBSITE: MoreNature.com The morenature.com website is aggressively selling so-called "natural" beeswax.

There are numerous pop-up style ad boxes centered on this page, and except for the last section, every paragraph recommends purchasing their products, in bold.

At the very bottom of this commercial webpage, they have very thoughtfully added information on surfboard wax, suggesting 3:1 beeswax to coconut oil +/- resin.

I don't believe there is any place on wikipedia, including/especially within the references, where the sources supporting wikipedia's information are listed, for self-interest of any kind, let alone trying to create salea.

I haven't made any edits as definitive as removing a listed reference yet, so I've written this here to find outif/ how to proceed ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacefulPlanet3 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beeswax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019120321/http://www.webmd.com/vitamins_supplements to http://www.webmd.com/vitamins_supplements

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beeswax. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beeswax. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information[edit]

In § Physical characteristics we read, inter alia:

Density at 15 °C is 958 to 970 kg/m³. … The specific gravity at 15 °C (59 °F) is from 0.958 to 0.975, …

These statements disagree slightly with each other about the upper limit. Since we normally use the comparative measure, specific gravity, for physical materials, I'm going to delete the first statement, and wikilink specific gravity. If anybody has an authoritative source for the actual measurements, please add a cite.

yoyo (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

section - Physical characteristics[edit]

says: "If beeswax is heated above 85 °C (185 °F) discoloration occurs." not clear what kind of discoloration is meant here. also the nearest source cited in No.7.:Material Safety Data Sheet-Beeswax is not dealing with this. also i just heated beeswax in a container submerged in boiling water (100 celsius) and no unusual color appeared. however: beeswax as freshly produced by bees is white, yet after melting it out from the debris of a hive (honey, dead bees, shedded skin from pupa, propolis, pollen) the wax takes on a light yellow color, as somewhere in WP said from the pollen. the rest of the debris is dark brown. i also suspect the brownish color of propolis (itself mostly tree sap) contributing to the yellow hue of the end product. but this discoloration doesnt seem to be dependent on the above mentioned 85 celsius temperature. so my suggestion is to remove the ominous sentence unless a source can be found. or else tag it with "citation needed". anyway it is not a very disturbing misrepresentation of facts, probably just a poorly worded sentence. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just because the water which you submerged the container containing beeswax into was 100 degrees Celsius does not mean that the beeswax itself reached that temperature. it very likely, if not almost certainly, did not. I'll give you that that claim should be cited, though Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removing hatnote from (bottom of) Production section[edit]

A hatnote was added to the bottom of the production section in April, saying that the wording of the section is unclear/confusing for readers. I am not entirely certain what they mean by their questions, nor how the article text could be worded any more clearly than it is. "when do you mean a bee must eat [this much] honey to make [this much] wax? when do you mean it takes [this much] wax to make [this much] honey, or what?" It seems fairly obvious to me that the wax produced by bees is not the very same wax that used to make to make the honey that they consumed in order to make it! it rather sounds like a chicken-and-egg type confusion. It takes a chicken to make an egg, and it takes an egg to make a chicken. likewise, it takes honey to make beeswax and it takes beeswax to make honey. I think this is fairly obvious to the vast majority of readers, and it would be superfluous to state the obvious in such a way.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]