Talk:TNT

The content of Pink water was merged into TNT on 19 May 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemicals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Mike Frialde (May 4, 2005). "10 sacks of TNT bound for Davao seized at North Harbor". The Philippine Star.

The NFPA 704 diagram is wrong

TNT must be heated greatly, or have a strong initiation source to explode. It melts at 82C and explodes at a higher temperature. This puts it at 3 for instability, and at 1 (or maybe 2 if the ignition temperature is less than 93C) for flamibility. Why does it say 4 for both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like a flip answer, but as a professional chemist, I am being completely serious. NFPA diagrams are created and applied by bureaucrats, not chemists nor explosives professionals. Everyone knows that TNT is dangerous, right? So clearly, it must represent a very large danger. A little less cynical, the NFPA diagrams reflect what might happen, and in a fire, TNT is clearly a major hazard. A documented plant explosion was caused by a worker tossing a cigarette butt that caused a burlap sack containing TNT to smoulder, resulting in a fire and subsequent explosion (See Urbanski, Chemistry and Technology of Explosives). Because TNT melts at below the boiling point of water, it can be present as liquid in a water-doused fire situation; the liquid is flammable in the presence of absorbative material (cf Candle). The "4" ratings are probably excessive, but considering the consequences of a fire and explosion, not entirely unwarranted. Norm Reitzel (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explosive hazard of TNT is much less than that of PETN (which is sensitive to shock) and still PETN has a rating of 3. Is there some standard/reference where those values can be looked up? The values in Wikipedia seem arbitrary:

TNT: 4 (very insensitive)

RDX: 4 (very insensitive)

HMX: 3 (also insensitive, but a stronger explosive)

PETN: 3 (sensitive to shock)

Nickel hydrazine nitrate: 3 (bordering a primary explosive) 78.10.207.114 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with another Wikipedia article

Both articles will have this exact message added to their talk section. The explosive yield of both TNT and Dynamite are cited as different values in their respective articles, and as multiple different values within a single article. The Wikipedia article on Dynamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 4.0 MJ/kg and 5 MJ/kg, respectively, whereas the Wikipedia article on TNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 2.8 MJ and 7.5 MJ/kg, respectively. In the TNT article, there is a line, "The explosive energy utilized by NIST is 4184 J/g (4.184 MJ/kg).[16]", which probably means to say that TNT has an explosive yield of 4.184 MH/kg, making for a probable third value, but the statement is ambiguous: On first read, I thought that NIST was an explosive that produced 4.184 MJ of explosive energy for every kg utilized. Suggest changing it to something like, "The NIST records the explosive yield of TNT as 4.184 MJ/kg.", if that is what is actually meant.

Units

Activation energy is listed in kcal/mol (switching this to kJ/mol would help with consistency) while the "Energy content" section inexplicably switches between GJ/t MJ/kg without properly explaining that they are the exact same unit, and prior in the same section the article fails to mention the fact that the energy density NIST equivalent definition of 4.184 GJ/t, when the units of energy and mass are divided by 10⁹ and 10⁶ respectively, is simply 4,184 J/g, or 1 kCal/g, a semi-arbitrary number chosen (presumably) for simplicity because it lies close enough to the mean experimental value/range. AnOldSky (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the final line of Energy content is unclear by saying "contains" given the section has just listed two different energy/mass contents of tnt (heat of combustion or energy density) (also, an apology to anyone trying to read this and not understanding I would be happy to reclarify anything energy/mass (which in base units ends up being just m²/s²) units are hard) AnOldSky (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian use

Removed (unsupported and false) assertion that TNT is "the most widely used explosive", and that, as a "consequence" its toxicity has been reported. TNT is a military explosive, and as a consequence, it's toxicity has been reported. It has found civilian use where fast detonation rate is suitable, but it is by no means the "most widely used" explosive, partly because of the high-speed detonation rate, and even though TNT has now found limited civilian use, toxicity analysis and reporting long predates that. 1.159.83.148 (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biodegradable?

The last two sentences of the article seem to contradict each other:

"An organism capable of the remediation of large amounts of TNT in soil has yet to be discovered.[50] Both wild and transgenic plants can phytoremediate explosives from soil and water.[51]"

So... is the first statement untrue? I have no knowledge in this field so all I can do is point out the confusion. Nathanscottdaniels (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I just clarified the conclusions from the first article and actually made a new reference to a more thorough article regarding plant degradation. UserSwamp (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]