Talk:Petrochemical

Definition of Petrochemical

As one who has worked in the petrochemicals industry for 28 years, I find the current definition rather strange. Admittedly, the compounds named are chemicals, and they are derived from rocks, however I think that there is a distinction to be made between chemicals and fuels. The agricultural chemicals mentioned are either made by relatively small-scale multi-stage organic synthesis (pesticides and herbicides) or are not organic at all (fertilisers - urea, ammonium nitrate, phosphate and potassium. Is ammonia a petrochemical simply because it is made by the reaction of methane-derived hydrogen and nitrogen?).

I would therefore suggest the following as a short alternative, which could of course be enlarged (though there are already articles on most of the indivdual chemicals):

Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum (hydrocarbon) origin.

The two main classes of raw materials are olefins (including ethylene and propylene) and aromatics (including benzene and xylene isomers), both of which are produced in very large quantities, mainly by the steam cracking and catalytic reforming of refinery hydrocarbons. From these basic building blocks are made a very wide range of raw materials used in industry - plastics, resins, fibres, solvents, detergents, etc.

World production of ethylene is around 110 million tonnes per annum, of propylene 65 million tonnes and of aromatic raw materials 70 million tonnes. The largest petrochemical industries are to be found in the USA and Western Europe, though the major growth in new production capacity is in the Middle East and Asia. There is a substantial inter-regional trade in petrochemicals of all kinds.

The above version seems far better than the current definition of petrochemicals, which gives the impression that coal-based chemicals are also petrochemicals. Is there any reason why it hasn't been adopted?

If there are no objections, I propose substituting the above for the current article.

User:Bathrobe 13 April 2006 (not logged in)

• When I read the current article the first thing that came to mind was that most pharmaceuticals are petrochemicals (If one goes back far enough in the production chain, most pharmaceuticals begin in an olefins plant.). As do most specialty chemicals and for that matter, some ethanol added to cheaper hard liquor and the CO2 used for carbonated beverages should all be considered petrochemicals. Perhaps some examples like these are worth mentioning? The examples given seem much more industrial StateOfTheUnion 18:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• well, it's 29 years now, but thanks for your confidence in my contribution!

Bearfoot 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

petrochemical industry

... currently redirects here, but the article doesn't really address either the commercial or engineering aspects, just the chemistry. Is there someplace better that could be pointed, or is our coverage just rather incomplete? Alai 06:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Presently the article says that "petrochemical" is not a correct term since the Greek prefix petro- means "rock", and that petrochemicals come not from rock, but from crude oil. I think that "petrochemical" is derived from the English word petroleum which means "crude oil" from the ground (or from underground). "Petroleum" in turn was derived from petro- meaning "rock" (in effect, meaning from the ground, as opposed to oil from plant or animal sources) and oleum meaning "oil". However, the term "oleochemical" would also be reasonable, meaning chemical from oil. H Padleckas (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the likely etymology, Henry, but I think oleochemical wouldn't be right - especially as it already has a (quite different meaning), see oleochemical. And when was the last time someone from BP sat down and said, "We need to build a new oleochemical plant in China"? "Correct" or not, petrochemical is the word used for chemicals from petroleum, see also wiktionary:petrochemical. I think we should remove the remark, which isn't sourced and doesn't have anything useful to add. When someone researches the etymology properly, they can add it in. Walkerma (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguably it ought to be "petroleochemical". Nagakura shin8 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The article probably needs to be rewritten

The current article begins with the following surprising definition "Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum or other hydrocarbon origin." This statement is probably incorrect but the rest of the article is built on this premise. The website lists ethylene-propylene-C4's and benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX) as the only petrochemicals. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry makes the following statement in the chapter on oil refining: "there are only few materials that are produced as individual chemical compounds, e.g., propane, sulfur, or benzene – toluene – xylene (BTX) aromatics." Mirriam-Webster Dictionary has this "a chemical isolated or derived from petroleum or natural gas" which is broad but to me excludes those derivatives obtained by further processing. 99% of the millions of synthetic organic compounds are derived from petroleum, so if we wish to distinguish petrochemicals, we should probably adhere to a far more restrictive list: C2's, C3's, C4's and BTX.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The webpage (not website) you cited above does not specifically say that ethylene-propylene-C4's and benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX) are the only petrochemicals. Those are the ones it shows until until you click on one of the links to see more. In fact, that webpage says:

Detailing all steps in a process and all end uses of petrochemicals would be impossible. Our selection of applications will give you an insight into how petrochemistry is central to today's society. Beyond this flowchart, bear in mind that there is much more to petrochemistry than what you will see here.....

You can click on any of seven links (methane, ethylene, propylene, C₄'s, benzene, toluene, xylenes) on that webpage to get details on more compounds from these petrochemicals. H Padleckas (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Other pages on this website called these few select compounds petrochemical feedstocks and imply these are the most significant feedstocks, but that there are other petrochemicals. H Padleckas (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement from the Ullmann Encyclopedia chapter on oil refining mentioned above effectively says that there are only few materials that are produced as individual chemical compounds [in an oil refinery - implicitly understood]. Many oil refineries are smaller refineries which only produce the basic fuels and asphalt and omit such specialties as petrochemicals and lubricants. What the Ullmann Encyclopedia statement means to say is that many of the product streams from an oil refinery are not individual compounds but mixtures of compounds. A petrochemical plant can take those product streams and do what they want with them. H Padleckas (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history of this article, I see that at 10:22 on 22 August 2009, User:124.125.26.108 vandalized this article by taking a large amount of material out and screwed everything up. This vandalism was never properly reverted to 16:13 version on 7 August 2009 by Trevor MacInnis. User:Beagel later came by and added a chart of petrochemicals, but the information in there is not as completely coherent as the Trevor MacInnis version. If somebody has the inclination, maybe he/she can fix up this mess. H Padleckas (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the list of petrochemicals which was mostly deleted by the User:124.125.26.108 vandalism mentioned above. I have the inclination to delete the rather jumbled table (chart) of petrochemicals added by above-mentioned User, but I left it as is. Instead, it would be nice to have a flowchart somewhat similar to this webpage (including the chart expansions made visible by clicking on the links) initially mentioned above by User:Smokefoot. A well made flowchart of petrochemicals with the right annotations may even be able to replace the list of petrochemicals I just restored. It would take a lot of work to make a rather complicated flowchart, which would be somewhat similar to the complicated charts showing biochemical pathways in the body. Another possibility would be to have a flowchart without the explanatory annotations, but include brief information on each petrochemical in a simplified list where each chemical is listed only once (perhaps alphabetically?). H Padleckas (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. The main problem is that if we accept the opening definition "Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum or other hydrocarbon origin." then all synthetic organic compounds produced on some arbitrarily significant scale can be listed here. My inclination would be to replace most of the list with a flowchart with links. Readers probably want to see how heavy chemicals connect to petroleum. Additional information might include some indicator of scale. Information on the uses of a given chemical would be found on the individual articles. Is CO a petrochemical? Sulfur is, I guess for the production of sulfuric acid. Is ammonia a petrochemical? that is what the current article says. Ammonia is made from methane and air, but I think that the methane is natural gas.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote a good bit of this article this weekend and would appreciate feedback on content and style. My goal was clarity and conciseness as opposed to comprehensiveness. Regarding the definition of petrochemicals, I have opted for the very simple "chemicals derived from petroleum." Since most petrochemicals and subsequent derivatives can be synthesized from natural gas liquids, coal or biological raw materials, the definition seems to be not exclusive.Sandcherry (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Visualization of Production Networks added

I added a few images visualizing the production routes of many of the chemicals mentioned on this page, using the data contained within the article. For each of the images, I've included the Graphviz source code used to generate them in case anyone has future additions, or better ideas about how to visualize these. Mr3641 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Petrochemistry

I think petrochemistry and petrochemical (and possibly petroleum product) should be merged. There's little difference in what the topic described by the articles are, although there are significant differences in content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a proponent of combining related and relevant articles, especially if they are stubs, to facilitate the creation of a single better article. There is also the stub article Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC), and the stub article, Petroleum products that is being suggested (tagged) to be merged here, but the merge requests are not combined. I do have an issue with part of the above comment, "There's little difference in what the topic described by the articles are, although there are significant differences in content.". I may be just having a misunderstanding day but "described by the articles" would be the same as "content", so I am having trouble deciphering this, especially considering all three titles are related. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal

I am removing the merge requests because of lack of participation per Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags. If an editor feels they should still be merged and places a tag again please follow the proper procedures and carry through with the request. Otr500 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Petrochemical list should be exhaustive

Since Petrochemicals are used to make medicines the insignificant petrochemicals should also be listed for a list that is exhaustive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:6C40:F02A:330C:11CC:ACDB (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. It might outgrow the Wikitable a bit, but a list format might be a good start. Dgputt (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

First petrochemical plant

Standard Oil (ESSO) claims to have built the first petrochemical plant at Bayway, NJ in 1920. It produced isopropyl alcohol. See https://archives.sciencehistory.org/repositories/3/archival_objects/43200 Union Carbide's claim that their Clendenin, WV plant built in 1920 was first (and produced olefins starting in 1921) may be more generally accepted but may not be accurate. Other than 100+ year old bragging rights, it probably does not make a difference which is listed as first. Thoughts? Sandcherry (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tree branching and more exhaustive list

Hello,

Kindly requesting some feedback on recent edits on this page from the group, if possible.

Two things I think could help on clarity:

1. Adding a more definite "family tree" structure to show origin of chemicals. For instance, please see the sequence below.

Ethylene->acetic acid-> vinyl acetate -> polyvinyl acetate

I think adding tree structures can make this origin more clear.

2. Showing a limited set of final products from the actual chemicals. Appending to the item above, we would have this:

Ethylene->acetic acid-> vinyl acetate -> polyvinyl acetate-> "Elmer's Glue:"

I think the appeal to the latter item is relatability. The risk of course, is clutter. So I think it will be an active source of editing.

Appreciate the team's input. Thanks. Dgputt (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

General sources, general sources, and general sources. Who gives this editor knowledge to set the branching scheme's hierarchy? Why is Elmer's Glue in this article? Seems parochial. I do not think that we want editors to add their favorite petrochemically derived product. So I am skeptical of this approach. One needs a set of massively general and authorative sources on this gigantic topic of international (vs US) importance. We editors dont give our perspectives, we "simply" report on authoritative sources. My 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned on WT:CHEM, presenting "family trees" as belonging to products is misleading at best - routes from feedstock to consumer products can vary dramatically between specific chemical plants in the same city, let alone from country to country. Your posted example shows the "origin of" acetic acid as (presumably) oxidation of ethylene, and while this route does exist, it would need to be located somewhere with very cheap ethylene to be competitive with carbonylation of methanol.

My thought on most of this page is not how to expand it, but rather what to keep - if anything at all. I have already removed the citationless "list of petrochemicals", as there was no apparent raison d'etre for its contents: many listed compounds are only "petrochemicals" depending on their sources (e.g., it is absurd to call ethanol produced from distillation of green biomass a petrochemical), or contained obscure derivatives (why specifically dodecylbenzene?). Most of the "history" section likewise discusses "compounds which can be petrochemicals", but not in the context of petrochemistry (unless storax balsam is petroleum now?).

The "aromatics" section is a mess; the inclusion of cyclohexane, even as a benzene derivative, is deeply misleading. Ethylbenzene is listed as a benzene derivative - which isn't wrong, but if we're arranging according to BTX, it's more frequently considered a xylene due to its chemical properties (as the xylene page itself notes). Many bullet points contain large families sorted by applications, rather than chemistry - it's a bold claim to list "solvents" as cumene derivatives, or "detergents" as alkylbenzenes (a category that incidentally includes toluene, cumene, ethylbenzene, et cetera).

I'm almost inclined to make an AfD and start from draft. Fishsicles (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

So, maybe we should burn it (this article) down and start fresh. The series "Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" has a chapter "Petrochemical Feedstocks". Very simple: three olefins, BTX, NH3, CH3OH. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, family trees are difficult. I guess the ideal way would be to show x percentage industrially produced via some route, or even qualitatively to show that this is "majority route" like (carbonation of methanol) but not to exclude alternative routes. I don't think this article even has a syn gas section.

I agree, we need to work on this. I think it has been categorized as high importance and C-grade level.

Would rather not have my work nuked wholesale (that violates spirit of this) and do tend to think this article can and should be fixed incrementally. Dgputt (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

"The spirit of this" is producing good encyclopaedia articles with verifiable sources. Listing miscellaneous consumer products according to one possible chemical precursor does not contribute to that, especially when the hierarchy has no apparent source. As for "family trees are difficult", I would argue difficulty is not the point - "family trees" as presented here are actively misleading. These compounds are not derived from any specific "parents", but can rather be converted between each other according to a wide variety of processes. Simple listings of products of a single chemical, as in the various images, are the most I would consider as acceptable for an encyclopaedia entry on petrochemicals in general. Fishsicles (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Thanks guys. Suppose pubchem is not a verifiable source and we can delete wholesale lazily. Was looking to spend some time helping something I'm passionate about, while helping to get a time match to add money to Wikipedia. But if you guys just want to lazily revert, whatever. Not worth my Christmas holiday.

To quote:

Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions.

Dgputt (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this thread has been rather clear about what we see as "elements of the edit that are problematic":

Who gives this editor knowledge to set the branching scheme's hierarchy?

We editors dont give our perspectives, we "simply" report on authoritative sources.

presenting "family trees" as belonging to products is misleading at best

Listing miscellaneous consumer products according to one possible chemical precursor does not contribute to that,

Please address the specific concerns rather than appealing to broad wiki policy. Fishsicles (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I will undo the reversion an remove the items that we are aligned upon. If that is reverted after the fact, I will work through the 3rd party processes. Dgputt (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It can be difficult to overhaul a big topic like this. I think that I can see what Dgputt was trying to do: connect the huge petrochemical industry to something more relatable to readers and maybe add some consumer reality. Also to demystify to some extent the product streams. That would be a herculean effort and would possibly/probably veer into original research (hence my emphasis on broad sources). The alternative pathway that we might consider is more austere or simple. The petrochemical plant produces about 8-10 products. The article would be concise but highly verifiable, I would guess. If we go that way, then the question is where might we put the collection of subsidiary chemicals that come from these 8-10 core products? Ethylene's derivatives are described in ethylene. Toluene's products go into toluene. If any flow scheme or branching scheme were introduced, those articles would have them.

Another thing: No, PubChem does not cut it here. We need sources with real authors. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)