Re: Beeswax / Paraffin and other topics - LONG

[Guest guest]

I'll try to answer a few issues in the one posting :-

For a start, let me preface my reply with a little

personal background info :

1. I'm an industrial chemist with 22 years formulation

experience.

2. I've worked in :

Pesticides - 3yrs (Roche / Rhone Poullenc)

Oil industry - 13 yrs (Mobil Oil)

Hazardous wastes - 3yrs (Nationwide)

Specialty chemicals mfg - 3 yrs (My own company)

3. I am necessarily biased to the view that, regardless of

source, if the chemistry and effect is the same there is

no difference between " natural " and " synthetic " . It's

a question of preference - not of " facts " .

Now then, to paraffin -

" High quality " (ie cosmetic grade) paraffins are produced

in a refinery by taking a crude paraffin (derived as a

by-product of the lube oil production process) an

" severly hydrotreating " the crude wax.

Hydrotreating is the oil industry term for removing

aromatic and unsaturated compounds by reacting them

with hydrogen (high pressure, moderate temperature &

specialised catalysts) to effectively remove ALL the

reactive species. As an example of another product that

is produced by the same method consider " white oil "

(medical paraffin) - same process / shorter carbon chain

length. Liquids have " short " carbon chains (say 20 - 30

carbons), waxes have " long " carbon chains (say 40+).

These compounds are, therefor, " virtually chemically

inert " . A quick check is to test their reactivity to

conc. sulphuric acid (the " sulphonatable residue test " ).

High quality paraffin and white oils are virtually 100%

" unsulphonatable " - ie they rate as having no

sulphonatable residue.

A " typical " lube oil might run at 80% unsulphonatable.

So 20% is still reactive.

Petrol would run at about 20% unsulphonatable (80%

reactive).

(BTW " Turkey Red Oil " is a sulphonated castor oil

derivative - so " natural " doesn't equal " inert " .)

Hydrotreating adds hydrogen. Hydrogen and carbon,

coupled to the oxygen in the air, burn to give CO2 and

water. Compounds with a higher hydrogen to carbon

ratio (eg paraffins) burn more cleanly than compounds

with lower hydrogen to carbon ratios (eg aromatics).

SO, ... a PURE paraffin candle will burn very cleanly

AND with a very high energy (eg heat & light) yield -

BUT they will tend to burn quickly because the " melt

point " of the wax is very clearly defined and the

wick can draw the clean , molten wax easily.

Impure candles (those that contain a lot of oil or that

use a low quality wax - so called " slack " wax) burn

with a smoky flame and sickly odour.

In terms of beeswax burning " cleaner and longer " -

most natural products have what could best be called

" inherent purity " - not some new age khamic process -

but a byproduct of the fact that natural systems tend

to be highly selective about the way chemistry works

in a biological sense. In other words, biological systems

run certain chemical pathways that select for specific

chemical outcomes. Now whether or not this

produces a wax that burns " cleaner and longer " is

a matter for testing - it certainly wouldn't be the bee's

primary aim - and you would want to test vs both high

and low grade paraffins ( as well as stearine and a variety

of blends) before formulating a conclusion.

Note that many (dare I say MOST) perfumes have a

high aromatic (ie benzene ring) content

(hence the name " aromatic " chemistry) and incomplete

combustion (as in a low temp candle flame) will indeed

produce a number of odd chemicals that could

conceivably lead to headaches, etc. A don't start

with the " Oh yes, but their natural " bit .... so is

bufotoxin and rattlesnake venom - pure and natural

and deadly - nature is just a source - not an outcome.

And so to a post from

>Tamara Zyganiuk

>www.spellboundbotanicals.com

In terms of things like cetyl alcohol, yes, you can " derive " it

from nature and cocobetain can start with a natural

product - but by the time it's been through the wringer at

Stepan or Henkel or A & W or P & G to produce the final,

complexed and refined product you might as well say that

it's a petroleum product - the reality is that, weight for weight,

there is probably as much petro derived stock as natural stock

in the molecule.

The phenoxyethanol argument is one I hadn't heard before -

I guess you could derive the compound from sage oil or

similar - but it seems like a long and involved process. Also,

if you want to clean it up to a cosmetic grade spec. I expect

they will have to distill and extract it - wonder what they use

as the extractant? Pentane or Heptane maybe (the same

PETROLEUM product used to extract most lavender E.O. -

sorry, couldn't help myself ). I guess they could go

supercritical CO2 - but then the PhenEth would be worth

the same as chamomille oil - about A$900 / kg! Seems a

waste of time and money (and resources) given that the

synthetic route produces the same product for about 1% of

that!

I., like you, dislike people making a claim that they either

cannot substantiate or where they are intentionally deluding

third parties who have no real skill set from which to evaluate

the claim. Natural derived is, IMHO, a sales gimick - as most

lay people cannot evaluate the synthetic pathway to create the

product the " starts with nature and therefor is natural " claim

is just BS to con the chemically uneducated.

regards,

BAH

Re: Beeswax

> yes, that is what I had read as well. another list member had

> information that found the paraffin to be " virtually chemically inert " .

> I was asking this member for more information on that because if it

> is true....I would like to use paraffin for certain things.

> of course beeswax will be more fragrant and cleaner burning. I am not

> certain it is longer burning. I have seen many candles outlast beeswax

> if they are made from a " high-quality " wax. There are also vegetable

> waxes now that are used for candle-making. It's all very interesting,

> but I am aware of what you mentioned.

> Thanks anyway!

>

>

> R & T Shields wrote:

> >

> > Well just because something is easily accessiblw does not mean that it

is

> > *safe*...look at pesticides for example...Here's a quote I found this

> > morning and an url too... " Naturally fragrant beeswax burns cleaner and

> > longer than petroleum-based waxes. There's no smoking since there is no

> > petroleum burning in the candles "

> > >