Talk:Borax

There are a number of related substances (with apparently similar properties) that are usually subsumed under the common name Borax.

Please also see the comments above about various chemical names and labels on products related to borax.

To avoid confusion I added a list of some of these substances categorized by their CAS-numbers to this articel.

This edit was reverted by a recent changes patroller who has not suggested any changes or improvements to my edit yet. I will copy my entry to his talk page below because it had been archived from that page without being answered.
I would appreciate any help cleaning up and possibly extending the list and eventually putting it back into the article. Until then I might go ahead and add some redirects under the title of these substances pointing to borax

" Hello Materialscientist,

you reverted my edit of the borax article commenting "poorly written, sourced to spamlinks".

Please excuse my less than perfect command of the English language.

I just noticed that the "alternative notation is B4Na2O7" made no sense at all and was about to remove it, when I found that your more thorough removal had already happened.

I would appreciate your help in improving the addition very much, unless of course you think theses borax derivatives should not be mentioned in the article at all.

The idea was to enable people doing a websearch for one of the synonyms mentioned to find this entry on Wikipedia.

And I would certainly also consider it of no less interest to mention other common names as well as CAS numbers for these substances for their informational value and to document their relationship. I was hoping that more knowledgable editors would fill the blanks and add some more details pertaining to the specific characteristics of those derivatives.

Which of the sources would you consider being a "spamlink"? Sinoceanchem.com?

I will paste the slightly adjusted edit below. Feel free to correct it or to perhaps suggest to enter the information someplace else. "

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borax. 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/20081206111423/http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/common/int_ssm_fact_sheet_07.pdf to http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/common/int_ssm_fact_sheet_07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208100622/http://www.hanscon.ch:80/caviar_website/glossary.htm to http://www.hanscon.ch/caviar_website/glossary.htm

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: 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) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I've noticed pages about the same subject on non-English Wikipedia here:

https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/硼砂

It is in Chinese as well as some other languages if you click the language button.

So the same topic seems to be split into 2 disjoint groups of pages by language, and these 2 groups cannot reach each other. Is it a defect?

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.93 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the mention of sodium tetraborate as a component of TBE buffer. TBE, originally suggested by Peacock and Dingman in 1967, does not contain sodium tetraborate, it contains tris, boric acid (H3BO3) and EDTA disodium salt. This is also true for more recent versions, such as HTBE, suggested by Anderson in 1981. The amount of sodium ion supplied by EDTA in TBE is only 1/100th of the borate ion, which does not make it a "sodium-borate buffer". Thus the phrase "Sodium borate is used in biochemical and chemical laboratories to make buffers, e.g. for gel electrophoresis of DNA, such as TBE or the newer SB buffer or BBS (borate buffered saline) in coating procedures." should be replaced by "Borate ion (commonly supplied as boric acid) is used in biochemical and chemical laboratories to make buffers, e.g. for gel electrophoresis of DNA and RNA, such as TBE buffer (borate buffered tris-hydroxymethylaminomethonium)[^{[1] [2] [3]} or the newer SB buffer or BBS (borate buffered saline) in coating procedures." Orthogon88 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources provided, references to original articles describing TBE.Orthogon88 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC) ^[4]

Done. Thanks Orthogon88 for the keen spot and well-informed fix. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Borax. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hanscon.ch/caviar_website/glossary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209040519/http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/15.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/15.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/HTMLdocs/SodiumBorate.htm

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) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It states, under toxicity, that such and such was first registered by the EPA in 1946.

The EPA was founded under Nixon in 1970!!!

Somebody should clean that up.

Philologick (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The article makes clear that while related, borax and boric acid are not the same thing.

However, the entire last paragraph of toxicity is solely related to issues with boric acid not borax.

A draft risk assessment released by Health Canada in July 2016 has found that overexposure to boric acid has the potential to cause developmental and reproductive health effects. Since people are already exposed to boric acid naturally through their diets and water, Health Canada advised that exposure from other sources should be reduced as much as possible, especially for children and pregnant women. The concern is not with any one product, but rather multiple exposures from a variety of sources. With this in mind, the department also announced that registrations for certain pesticides that contain boric acid, which are commonly used in homes, will have their registrations cancelled and be phased out of the marketplace. As well, new, more protective label directions are being introduced for other boric acid pesticides that continue to be registered in Canada (for example, enclosed bait stations and spot treatments using gel formulations).

The penultimate paragraph does discuss exposure to borax which seems quite appropriate but it isn't clear to me that the discussion of boric acid belongs in this article. What do others think?S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The formula mentioned in the chemistry section here (Na2[B4O5(OH)4].10H2O) does not match the one given under the properties section on the right (Na2[B4O5(OH)4].8H2O)...

i had changed the one in the chemistry section a few minutes ago to the one with 8H2O but going through the past edits shows that someone had probably changed it from 8 to 10 in the past saying that no octahydrated form exists for this compound. So, i have reverted my own edit.

i am not sure which one is correct-i am no expert in chemistry-but 8H2O can be found at chemspider (http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.17625711.html). So, i think someone with who knows this compound better to have a look and suggest an edit. Thanks!175.100.159.56 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Article listed for the following, "The country's Directorate of Consumer Protection warns of the risk of liver cancer with high consumption over a period of 5–10 years.[25]" does not contain any risk assumptions or assessment.

Instead it flat out claims "Formaline and Borax in five – ten year term will cause on liver cancer disease for those in frequent concumption ;" No other information regarding liver cancer or the claim that Borax causes it is present. The word use of 'Risk' is incorrect, provided the source, and the source is rather stark and desolate of any other information regarding Borax and a link to Liver Cancer. 2600:6C64:7008:100:19C0:1382:75C3:7AFF (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there are better sources than this. I have added some studies of the health effects of boron. Zzaps (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

How would you make elemental boron from crystal sodium tetraborate using house hold means? If you can that is. Thanks! UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen "Borax Substitute" on sale, but with no description of what it actually is. Please can someone knowledgeable add this information to the article ? And the reason why it would be substituted ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Wikipedians!

No reference given the LD50 that is stated:

"Its LD50 (median lethal dose) score is tested at 2.66 g/kg in rats, meaning that a significant dose of the chemical is needed to cause severe symptoms or death" ^[1]

LD50 reported by USA EPA in 1969 is 4.55-6.05g/kg in male rats ^[2], and later reported in 1972 found by toxicology study to be 4.5g/kg ^[3].

It would be good for you to sign your posts. That said: Go ahead and put this information in the article, with the cites. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is common practice at Wikipedia to have separate articles for substances as chemical compounds and as naturally-occurring mineral species. Examples: Nitre versus potassium nitrate; calcite or aragonite versus calcium carbonate; quartz or tridymite or cristobalite versus silicon dioxide; telluric iron versus iron; native copper versus copper. It turns out that, while borax may refer to a family of hydrated sodium borates from the point of view of chemists, borax also refers specifically to a naturally-occurring mineral form of sodium tetraborate decahydrate. Other naturally-occurring mineral forms of hydrated sodium borates have their own mineral species names and articles, e.g. tincalconite and kernite.

It would be in keeping with this practice to have an article on sodium tetraborate decahydrate specifically as a mineral species, but this article (which is essentially an article on the chemistry of hydrated sodium borates) preempts the established mineral name. I see three solutions:

1. Expand the "natural sources" section to describe borax as a mineral species. Objections are that this means two infoboxes in one article, which is awkward; and that borax as a mineral species is specifically sodium tetraborate decahydrate and not the whole family of hydrated sodium borates.

2. Create a new article, say, "Borax (mineral)", and add a "Main article" tag to the natural sources section of this article.

3. Move this article to "Sodium borates" or some other generic title that can cover the varius hydrated sodium borates to make room for a "Borax" article that is about the specific mineral species.

What are the preferences? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Chemically, "borax" refers to the same composition as the mineral does, sodium borate decahydrate. There is already a set index at sodium borate about other compositions. So, if anything, I think this article just needs to be cleaned up a bit to make clear what chemical compound is being discussed. I think there can be different extents of hydration, both in chemicals referred to as "borax" and in naturally occurring deposits; more sourcing on this would be good. More content about the crystal structure of the mineral could certainly be added as well. I am not sure there is enough additional content about the mineral specifically that would justify a standalone article, in contrast to the examples above, but perhaps. Content should be added here, and if it becomes clear it's time for a WP:SPINOUT, that can happen if/when we get to that point. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sodium borate does indeed have different extents of hydration in naturally occurring deposits, but each has its own mineral name, and two of these (kernite and tincalconite) already have their own mineral articles. Borax, to a mineralogist, is very specifically sodium tetraborate decahydrate in natural occurrence. Mineralogists look at borax quite differently than a chemist does; for a good example of the difference in perspective between the two fields, compare halite with sodium chloride.

What further complicates matters is that chemist apparently use "borax" as a generic for several compounds, or else it would make sense to rename this article (for example) as sodium tetraborate decahydrate and let borax be the mineral article title, with a mineral infobox, similar to kernite or tincalconite. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I support separate articles on borax(mineral) and borax the chemical, consistent with the analogy of halite and sodium chloride. These quasi-parallel article are always a little redundant, but they give specialists distinct opportunities for editing. Lots of images of mineral specimens in one, lots of chemical reactions and bonding in the other.

Small rant: Where this parallel article issue can become slightly tricky or tedious is that many, many ordinary salts (say, sulfates) that occur upon, say, aerobic degradation of bulk minerals (say sulfides). In ferrous sulfate, see the list of minerals versions of various hydrates, none of which can withstand rainfall, but they each have a name, and some rock hound is often memorialized for identifying these things. Borax is elevated above those niche items. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kent G. Budge: So we should start an article entitled Hydrated sodium borate or Borax (chemical)? Any advice for graphite?--Smokefoot (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is fine; the only question is whether to retitle it to Borax (chemical) or possibly Sodium borates or leave it as is. I'd create an article on the mineral with the title either Borax (mineral) and leave this one as Borax, with a suitable hatnote, or Borax if this one moves. Since it's not clear one has priority over the other, and since "borax" is almost always used instead of "sodium borates" for the family of chemicals, I think my mild preference is to create a Borax (mineral) article and hatnote it here, leaving this one otherwise alone. If there is no serious objection from other editors, I'll proceed with that. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The chemical name doesn't have any B in it, and the diagram doesn't show any Na. What's correct? cbdorsett (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are correct. It's an ionic compound, which means it's made of positive ions and negative ions that get stuck together. The part you're calling the "name" is the positive ion [Na(H₂O)₄]⁺, and the part you're calling the "diagram" is the negative ion, [B₄O₅(OH)₄]^2-. 216.215.89.226 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The following paragraph seems to suggest (possibly unintentionally) that consumption of boric acid and/or borax (it’s unclear if it’s either or both) can decrease one’s risk of “various types of” cancer. However, its source suggests the opposite, and it is specific to liver cancer.

I believe the wording should be changed for accuracy, and also clarity. Further, if this passage is referring to another manifestation of boric acid, rather than borax specifically, it should probably be removed entirely. I do not have the knowledge or qualifications to assess its validity or relevance directly, but thought the mixed up wording should at least be addressed.

The portion I’m referring to is in the last paragraph in the “Uses” section:

>When consumed with boric acid, numerous studies have demonstrated a negative association between borax and various types of cancers. SilverXnoise (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with chemistry confirm that the O7 at the end of the lead section is supposed to be O7? The rest of the formulas in the article imply there are 17 O not 7 O in the unit. 2001:56A:711D:4500:B142:156F:35F6:7092 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You are right! Fixed. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)