Talk:Glow stick

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

The article mentions a shift in emission spectrum over time and refers to the following: Spectral shift with time Prior to this investigation, it was thought that the chemsticks had fairly stable spectral distributions. However, spectral distribution measurements of fourteen lightsticks showed that there was a greater than expected variance. In an effort to track down the source of this variance, several lightsticks were measured at different times after activation. Figure 3 shows the results of these measurements. The spectral distribution of the lightstick output shifts toward the red as a function of time after activation.

However, looking over the internet for other sources to this claim I can find none. Can anyone confirm this and does anyone know why the shift happens?

PS. CPPO which is used in comercial glowsticks does not form phenol, it forms a phenol molecule with a chain of carbons attached to it which is conciderably less toxic. The hydrogen peroxide can however be an irritant. /Aneis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.134.23 (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should there be a distinction between commercial and industrial glow sticks? is there a line? Also note the 2014 danish consumer report that found a lot of chemicals in consumer glow sticks that should not be there. Is there a source that proves the existence or not of CPPO? 2604:3D08:7C7E:68C0:B817:D9F8:247A:E509 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A time dependent emission spectrum of a color changing light stick can be found in Figure 3 of the article in Journal of Chemical Education, volume 86, page 64 - 67.^[1] In this emission spectrum, two fluorescing dyes can be clearly discerned. The peak of the red emitting dye shows a shift to the blue, if any shift at all. I think the claim that glow sticks shift to the red over time should be eliminated from this article. Pchemstud (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=78&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PALL&s1=Dubrow.INNM.&OS=IN/Dubrow&RS=IN/Dubrow was registered in 1965, before the stated "earliest patent" in the article. -Teger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teger (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZhongHan (Email), Singapore

Light stick and Glow stick. Both terms are used depending on the quality of the stick. The light stick in a dark room you can see objects around you for a longer period than a glow stick. The glow stick is not made for lighting it is more of a party or toy item, not as bright and cheaper to manufacture.

I have seen both. I have Cyalume "Safety Lightsticks" made by Omniglow. I understand both terms to be perfectly acceptable, wher I live, Edmonton, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles California U.S.A. March 9, 2006

Not so I'm afraid - 'glow stick'/ 'glowstick' / 'light stick' / 'lightstick' are all are generic terms for the same thing - it just depends on what you call them. The quality, brightness & glow duration simply depend on how the manufacturer made the product. Yes there are different qualities but there can be a difference with what the product was made for - ie. standard glowstick approx 12 hour usable light - high intensity will glow much brighter but for only say 20-30 minutes. - Both could be called any of the above terms - just like 'jumper' / 'sweater' / 'jersey' etc etc

Hong Kong July 21st 2006

"Google Fight" showed the following usage statisticks:

1. "glow stick" at 584,000 results
2. "glowstick" at 315,000 results
3. "light stick" at 263,000 results
4. "lightstick" at 145,000 results

statisticks (sic)  :)

Armandoban 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just recently went to a party, and they had lightsticks there. A bunch of people broke the sticks, and the chemicals poured out everywhere. No one cared except me (In other words, I left). Now, I'm wondering, If my friends stayed in that room the whole two hours, surrounded by thes toxic chemicals, are they in any danger? Bluebry muffin 17:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chemicals in the glowsticks aren't very toxic; it may well be that the biggest hazard is the broken glass contained within the plastic enclosure.

Interesting trivia: For the movie Predator 2, the creature's glowing blood was simulated by mixing glowstick chemicals with K-Y Jelly.

Atlant 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much (and cool movie fact, too). But, it said "toxic chemicals" on the package. It also said it may cause skin irritation. I saw some people decide to put some on their hand, and walk around with it. Are you sure? Bluebry muffin 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure. And I'm sure the vendor will disavow the use of their product as a skin cream. But there's probably an MSDS available from the manufacturer that gives the straight dope; they can't sell into industrial situations without an MSDS.

Atlant 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, using one of the links on the MSDS Wiki page, here's a link to a "Cyalume" light stick:

http://siri.org/msds/f2/bgs/bgsjd.html http://glowstick-glow-stick-products.blogspot.com

The crucial bit:

LD50 LC50 Mixture:ORAL RAT LD50 GREATER THAN 5.0 GM/KG

Routes of Entry: Inhalation:YES Skin:YES Ingestion:YES

Reports of Carcinogenicity:NTP:NO IARC:NO OSHA:NO

Health Hazards Acute and Chronic:PRODUCT IS AN ARTICLE CONSISTING OF A

PLASTIC TUBE OR SHAPE CONTAINING AN ACTIVATOR AND A GLASS AMPOULE

OF LUMINESCER.

Effects of Overexposure:OVER EXPOSURE IS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE

SIGNIFICANT ACUTE EFFECTS. PRODUCT MUST BE DAMAGED IN ORDER FOR ANY

SIGNIFICANT PERSONAL CONTACT TO OCCUR. EYE:GLASS CHIPS MAY CAUSE

PHYSICAL INJURY. SKIN:NO IRRIT ATION OBSERVED WITH ANIMAL TESTS,SO

NO HUMAN IRRITATION EXPECTED.

Medical Cond Aggravated by Exposure:NONE KNOWN.

So at least the American Cyanamid brand of glowstick seems pretty innocuous; they mention the same hazard I did: the glass chips.

  The MSDS says the glowsticks contain DIBUTYL PHTHALATE, a nasty chemical. However this phthalate is almost never used in commerical glows ticks any more. 

Theblueis9 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlant 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I always have questions, but, the air was extremely humid. Could the liquid be picked up by the large amount of moisture in the air? Bluebry muffin 01:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to doubt it, but I simply don't know.

Atlant 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left the party just because a bunch of people broke some glowsticks? You're no fun... --Candy-Panda 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol is not as deadly as pinene. -lysdexia 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyalume Technologies, Inc. Announces the Only Commercially Available Phthalate Free Chemical Light. www.mpsafety.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.220.231 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated topic, one thing I'd love to see addressed in the article on lightsticks (at [[1]]) is the manner in which the light from a Lightstick fades.

When green-colored Cyalume(tm) Lightsticks first came out, I remember reading on the package that they "glowed with the brightness of a flashlight for the first six hours, and with the brightness of a night-light for the next six hours", or similar verbiage (this was years ago, and my memory is not exact, but that was the gist. I definitely remember the brightness of the second six hours being compared with a night light). From personal experience, this fade-off is both gradual and steady.

But it's the verbiage itself that fascinates me: it seems to me that the one phrase which the company went out of its way to avoid using, was "half-life." That's understandable -- the term is so thoroughly associated in the public perception with nuclear radiation that its usage in this context would surely have been the Kiss of Death to any marketing campaign for an object that glows. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that the light indeed does fade according to the half-life principle. One thing which the half-life principle dictates is that the "radiation" -- only photons in this case -- can never totally fade to zero, and indeed, in a dark room, a Lightstick can be seen to be still glowing, albeit very faintly, even after a couple of DAYS!

I'd love to see mention or discussion of this "half-life" fading within the main article, provided that someone -- anyone -- can obtain verification of and/or a confirmatory reference to it (not me, folks: I wouldn't even BEGIN to know where to look).

The Grand Rascal 18:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most chemical reactions run to their endpoint in an exponential fashion? The lightstick is no different, it just happens to be a slow-enough reaction that you get to see the run-down take place across days.

Atlant 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overall reaction is actually 2 second order reactions (to use chemistry jargon). It will not necessarily fade with a constant half-life (over any interva of one half-life, half the material present would react). Only first order reactions always decay his way. Here, the first step depends on two reactants meeting each other, reacting, then one of the products meeting another chemical. Because the rates of collisions decrease when few molecules are there, the rate will decrease over time in a non-first order (non-exponential) way. But, just to make it more confusing, if all but one chemical has a large excess, it might still look like a first order reaction. Chipotle (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is short, to the point, and very well written, the chemistry behind it is incredibly detailed. At first glance, it almost looks like something most readers wouldn't be able to understand. There are a lot of chemical names and a few conversions. The page is also littered with links to articles that don't exist (or need to exist). The first paragraph is good, but the rest is just mind-blowing. Much of this information can be labeled as "jargon", that is, information and terms that common readers probably do not understand without a field of expertise. Is it possible to describe the chemistry on more simplified terms? Colonel Marksman 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the chemistry section, and unfortunately it's already about as simple as it can be without making it trivial ("A chemical reaction happens and then it glows."). Ignore the specific chemical names, because they aren't secret chemistry jargon for something you know by another name, they're weird specialty chemicals you've never heard of before unless you work in the dye industry or something. (You probably have heard of hydrogen peroxide, but if so you already knew that, because in that case the chemical name and the common name are the same.) 68.105.71.75 (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to the picture. i only counted four colours. What in the hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.117.34 (talk • contribs) .

Try to stay calm ;-). It's fixed now.

Atlant 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be edited to include electroluminescent lightsticks? ZhongHan (Email) 07:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone include information about Luminol based sticks containing different chemicals?

(A spam-banned glowsticks website I can't post here) lists alternate ingredients not including Cyalume or anthracene which are not mentioned in this entry (unless I misunderstood a chemical formula). These ingredients included luminol, ammonium & sodium carbonate, and copper sulfate pentahydrate. I'm curious as to how these sticks are different from cyalume sticks and how/if they're less toxic. (I have a suspicion a lot of people probably find this article looking directly for qualified information on how non-toxic glowstuff really is or isn't.)

Armandoban 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above, someone is asking help about possible toxicity of the glowstick contents. Someone else tells him its not harmfull. On the glowstick page itself it is suggested that the glowsticks can be used for invisible ink.

But; the reaction in the glowstick yields phenol, that's a mutagene as far as I know, and in my opinion very harmfull.

Can someone confirm this??

Drgn 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol is indeed poisonous but I suspect at the concentrations involved, there's not much to worry about. The dose makes the poison. --Rifleman 82 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-full -> ful

-gene -> gen

-lysdexia

In the "Usage" section of the article there is a line which reads:

When punctured, glowsticks can also be used as pens to write messages that can only be seen in the dark. This is not recommended as the chemicals in the sticks can be dangerous.

Then in the "Toxicity" section, it says:

Glow sticks are not toxic. They can however be mildly irritating to the skin.

So are they dangerous or not? --Candy-Panda 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. I have a glowstick in front of me and it says "Nontoxic". I'm confused --79.127.171.16 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is a major issue as there are many types of glow stick formulations, and some are very dangerous, while others are not as dangerous. maybe this could be a topic? 2604:3D08:7C7E:68C0:B817:D9F8:247A:E509 (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What chemicals are used in infrared glowsticks as fluorophors? --Shaddack 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we use Luciferin and Luciferase in any glowsticks? I could swear we did. If not, why not? It's good enough for fireflies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this company is working on it apparently www.luxbio.ca 2604:3D08:7C7E:68C0:B817:D9F8:247A:E509 (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why: http://google.com/search?q=luciferin+price%7Ccost. -lysdexia 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some trains here (UK) have glowsticks for use in emergencies where the lights have failed. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we fix the pic so the lines dont go thru it?Д narchistPig (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for more information on what sort of conditions thse can be used in, specificalyl temperature ranges? I haven't done any true testing, but I left one in the glove box of my car while it was -40 Celsius outside, the liquid still worked, but seemed to be a little thicker than normal. It breaked n shaked jsut fine and stayed lit well. I didn't measure teh actual temperature of teh stick though, so it may not have been -40c. Does anyone have any more specific information on the temperature range and variation? IE storing in a vehicle and taking it to extremely hot and cold places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For people who might not know it, -40 is the point at which the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales meet. That is, -40 degrees is -40 degrees in either scale, and in both scales (!). So, that lightstick was really, really cold!

i've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that lightsticks both keep viable, and also glow longer once activated (albeit not quite as brightly), if they've been kept in the freezer.

The Grand Rascal (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandRascal (talk • contribs)

I propose moving the page to Glow stick with two words. There are more google hits as two words than one, and it seems more correct. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Itub (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a lot of difficulty understanding this sentence

Cyalume was invented by Michael M. Rauhut,[1] David Iba Sr, Robert W. Sombathy and Laszlo J. Bollyky of American Cyanamid based on work by Edwin A. Chandross of Bell Labs[2][3] in conjunction with Richard D. Sokolowski of Eh.M Labs[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.121.116 (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have something on proper disposal, please? (After all, millions are produced.) Would it be treated as (shattered) glass? Are the residue chemicals more critical? Or is it a special case?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are glow sticks that produce white light. I have one of these. Sportsmans Guide sells these things. Should be mentioned. 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, mention that the only give useable light for 20-30 minutes.

The Grand Rascal (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of Cyalume (CPPO) shown in the reaction is incorrect (no chlorines!). (under heading "chemistry") The compound shown is a simple phenyl oxalate ester, not CPPO. Chipotle (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The first person to take a glowstick to a rave was Jimmy Trainer, he owned a shop which sold them for climbing uses and then one day decided to take it along to a party." I felt it needed citation, a quick search of the name and little to nothing reported. Added the citation needed tag, but wonder if this is even relevant to the article at all if it can't be verified undeniably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.114.130 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt this is true, as glow sticks were used by so many people in the military way before people selling them for climbing 2604:3D08:7C7E:68C0:B817:D9F8:247A:E509 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are circulating some videos about using Mountain Dew to glow. In the video, they put a "1/4 inch" of mountain dew, a "tiny bit" of baking soda, and three cap-fulls of hydrogen peroxide. The mixture is shaken, and the liquid begins to glow.

This is a prepared situation in which the mountain dew was previously laced with the liquid from a green glow stick. By adding the three cap-fulls of hydrogen peroxide, the liquid from the glow stick is activated and begins to glow. A clever trick!

82.5.69.140 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a photograph available of the world's biggest glowstick from the BangFace Weekender in Camber Sands earlier this years, I've licensed it under a Creative Commons license so feel free to use it. Link to the Flickr page

The article contained an unsourced claim that freezing glow sticks will not work for more than a few days, and that after this time they would cease glowing entirely.

This is false. As a child, I routinely froze glow sticks and played with them weeks or months after the initial activation. One time, I left a glow stick in the freezer for an entire year: I cracked it on Halloween, and took it out again the next Halloween. I remember being very impressed that it still had a significant (though diminished) glow left. I used the regular fat green glow sticks for this; I found that the thin bracelet-type glow sticks had a *much* shorter lifespan in the freezer.

I know this is original research, but I do not require a source to remove an unsourced (and clearly false) claim. Therefore, I have removed the relevant lines. 68.59.52.128 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead - what is "EMS"? --Rofish (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, EMS is an abbreviation for Emergency Medical Services. User99L (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the opening paragraph leads to the google page of 'youve been pwned'. I would fix that, but I am remarkably clumsy. 88.108.162.110 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind 88.108.162.110 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's one detail I would like to see added: what is the form of energy that is released by the chemical reaction that is responsible for triggering the dye? Currently, the article simply says: "energy" but not what form of energy. Is it UV or some other high-energy light? (This is how florescent dyes typically work.) Even if this "energy" is too complicated for this article, at least something that could point the reader to additional sources would be a great addition. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chemistry described is in my view not representative for the composition of most glow sticks. Firstly, the content is a non-polar liquid (it does not mix with water), secondly, neither of the liquids (the outer colorless or the inner coloured one) give light when mixed with hydrogen peroxide (tested up to 30% concentration). Also, the reaction described produces co2 which is a gas. Anyone who cut open a glow stick will notice that no gas escapes. I know this is WP:OR, but that doesn't change the facts... 94.227.3.186 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chemicals inside the plastic tube are a mixture of the dye and diphenyl oxalate. The chemical in the glass vial is hydrogen peroxide.

That in itself is not consistent with the glowsticks I have, the outher liquid is colorless, it's the one inside the glass tube that is coloured. As cutting the end of one without damaging the glass tube will show. 94.227.3.186 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glow stick. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071024130528/http://www.engin.umich.edu:80/~CRE/web_mod/new/glowsticks/reactions.htm to http://www.engin.umich.edu/~CRE/web_mod/new/glowsticks/reactions.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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glow stick. 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/20120519135752/http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem333/CENLightSticks.html to http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem333/CENLightSticks.html

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) 15:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ftisland light stick.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should add something about that IMHO MiXT4PE (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]