1

North Dakota State University

Students Perceptions of the Naming
of Common Household Chemicals
Brooke Benz, Brendon Disrud, Isaiah Frandson, Miranda Husnick, Cole
Rehovsky

Abstract
Chemicals are all over our homes, with even natural components
being coated or altered to increase their usefulness and longevity.
Viewpoints of the public can differ from artificial things are
chemicals, or harmful things are chemicals. Because there is such a
wide range of definitions for the word chemical, use of the word can
induce a wide variety of responses from person to person. We
hypothesized that the majority of the people would be more
comfortable with a chemicals common name than the chemical name.
A survey was distributed among North Dakota State University
students to compare if they were more comfortable with the common
name or the chemical name. Results indicated that more participants
ranked the item as safer when given the common name versus the
chemical name. This is evidence of the role marketing plays in our lives
regarding chemicals and how many only recognize brand names
compared to the active chemical in the compound.

Introduction
Chemical technology surrounds everyday Americans in more
ways than we might realize. From polymers in our shoes, to
antibacterial hand soap, soft drinks, and gasoline, scientific progress
has changed almost every aspect of our lives. With the growth of
chemical technologies and the spread of their prevalence, concerns
about chemicals have risen as well [1]. Chemicals are all over our
homes, with even natural household components being coated or
altered to increase their usefulness and longevity [2]. These chemicals
cover a huge range of human interaction from deadly to harmless with
little way to tell the difference, unless marked on the packaging. This
packaging can be confusing to consumers if active ingredients are
shown using scientific names. Acetic acid, for example, is safe for most
household needs (active ingredient in vinegar) while sulfuric acid is
highly corrosive and dangerous [3].
The goal of this research is to find the current opinions of NDSU

2
undergrad students on a variety of common chemicals, framed in both
a scientific manor and one more accessible to public discourse. It is
hypothesized that the majority of people will be more comfortable
using the common name of the product vs. the chemical name.
Research showing a difference of opinion caused by the way this
information is presented could be used to change way that chemicals
are marketed and the publics perception of those chemicals.

Chemicals and Public Perception

The concept of chemicals is difficult to define. From the viewpoint
of the academic (scientific) discourse any molecule can be considered
a chemical. Viewpoints of the public can differ from artificial things
are chemicals, or harmful things are chemicals. Because there is such
a wide range of definitions for the word chemical, use of the word can
induce a wide variety of responses from person to person [4]. For
example, an article headline reading Chemicals in our food could be
frightening, portraying an image of toxic sludge mixing into your Kraft
American Singles, when the body of the article could be talking about
the many kinds of natural sugars that are found in the product [5].
One notable instance of unfounded chemical fear was concerning
dihydrogen monoxide. While this story has grown into something of an
urban legend in some groups, others have never heard of it before.
Proponents of a ban of dihydrogen monoxide have cited the fact that it
can be deadly if inhaled, and is the cause of numerous severe burns
yearly [6]. This chemical is used as an industrial solvent, as well as a
coolant in nuclear plants. In reality dihydrogen monoxide is a
needlessly complicated name for water, which would be outrageous to
try and ban. However the fear of this chemical name has prompted
many instances where individuals and groups have lobbied for ban of
the compound (with varying degrees of success) [7].
The US governments Chemical Hazardous Substance act requires
precautionary labeling for potentially dangerous chemicals. Consumer
and employees right to know calls for warning information to be
available on both the packaging of these products, as well as a
material safety data sheet (MSDS). The MSDS contains more specific
data then what is available on the packaging alone [8].
Firstly, the MSDS contains the products NFPA 704, also known as
the fire diamond. This can give the reader a quick overview of the
dangers associated with the product. The diamond is separated into 4
parts; the left (blue) is health hazard, the top (red) is flammability, the
right (yellow) is reactivity, and the bottom (white) is for special
concerns. The three colored sections are rated on a scale from 0 to 4
with zero being safe, and 4 being most dangerous. The special

3
concerns section uses standard lettering to denote the precautions
that must be taken (example: hazmat suits required or a water reactive
chemical) [9].
Secondly, the MSDS contains the active ingredients and
concentrations of these ingredients in the product. Active ingredients
are presented with the IUPAC nomenclature, which is the standard for
naming in organic chemistry (also used in this research). While this
naming convention allows for a reader that knows the system to
reconstruct the chemical structure of a molecule based on its name, it
can be difficult for new readers to interpret this information [10]. A lack
of understanding is often accompanied by an unwillingness to expose
oneself to the unknown. This behavior is present in response to
chemicals, as well as some other modern technologies.

GMOs and the Future

Poor public perception of scientific names may be effecting the
publics reception GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) and other
new consumer technologies. To ensure safety, it is important to test
new technologies with a proper due diligence. Where public reaction to
many advances in technology is supportive until proven dangerous, it
seems to be the case in this instance that many judge it as dangerous
by default. This could stem from the fact that humans have an
instinctive response to avoid consuming poisonous things, or it could
have something to do with the product being presented in an overly
scientific way [11].
By examining reactions to a scientific display of information vs. a more
layman framing we can help move to understand and predict the
public reaction to new technologies. This can help companies or
government agencies when choosing marketing strategies for now
products.

Methods
In order to implement the previously mentioned research, a
survey was administered to undergraduate students at North Dakota
State University. A survey allowed for a higher quantity of student
responses, which should more accurately represent the total
population than a small sample size. NDSU students were chosen to be
surveyed out of convenience as everyone on campus has an NDSU
email and can easily be accessed. An electronic survey was
constructed on SurveyMonkey.com. This website was used because our
research team had previous knowledge of the site, the easy designing
process in making the survey, and there is no cost associated with
making the survey.

This survey was administered via NDSU email to the students of

various classes and clubs across campus. The courses surveyed are
listed below along with how many students are in each class/club.
Bio 111: Concepts of Biology (300)
MICR 486: Capstone (16)
MICR 474: Epidemiology (16)
ANSC 223: Intro to Animal Nutrition (150)
CSCI 313: Game Design (40)
Habitat for Humanity (30)
BIOC 461: Fundamentals of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology II
(120)
Overall, more than 600 students were emailed this survey with
hopes of getting more than one hundred responses. These classes
were chosen specifically for a few reasons. First, at least one member
of our research team is enrolled in each class. This allowed us to gain
access to the course list to send the survey. Second, these courses
include students from different majors and career goals; this adds
diversity to the study. With this diversity and the high number of
individuals surveyed, we thought our sample would accurately
represent the total NDSU population as a whole.
Question 1 asked for the students sex. Question 2 asked for the
students college (College of Business, Health Professions, etc.). These
questions were included on the survey so more information was known
about the individuals completing the survey. Also, comparisons could
be made using these questions and the results of question 3, which
asked how likely the individual would use the following products with
safety as the main priority: vinegar, bleach, baking soda, antifreeze,
DEET, Borax, Tylenol, acetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, sodium
bicarbonate, ethylene glycol, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide, sodium
tetraborate decahydrate, and acetaminophen. The students were given
the choices of very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, neutral,
somewhat likely, and very likely for each option. The ideology
behind this question is that each product is listed twice, just with a
different name. For example, the main ingredient in vinegar is acetic
acid. Sodium hypochlorite is the main ingredient of bleach. Baking
soda and sodium bicarbonate pair up. Antifreeze and ethylene glycol,
DEET, and N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide, Borax and sodium tetraborate
decahydrate, and Tylenol and acetaminophen all match up. By using
two different names for the same general compound, we could
compare how the naming of the product affects the users perceptions
for using it. Overall, we were using these different names to see if

5
users would think the common name or the chemical name was safer
to use.

Results
After collecting the data from the surveys, many comparisons
can be made. First, information on the sample of NDSU students who
completed the survey will be explained. Of the 74 students who
participated in the survey, 46 were female, 27 were male, and 1 did
not wish to share sexual orientation. The students were distributed
across every college at North Dakota State University with the greatest
percentage (41%) coming from the College of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Natural Resources.
When evaluating the submitted answers of the questions
regarding how likely each student was to use the product in terms of
safety, we chose to simplify the answers into a comfort level. If the
students chose Somewhat Likely or Very Likely to use a compound,
we said they are comfortable with using the product. Likewise, if they
chose one of the other three answers, we said they are uncomfortable
using the product. For example, if a sample is 85% comfortable with
using a product, 85% of the sample either chose very likely or
somewhat likely to use the product based on its name. As one can
see from Figure 1 below, students were more comfortable using the
product named as the common name over the chemical name with
every compound used. In fact, students were 55.6% comfortable on
average using the common names of the product, but only 30.9%
comfortable using the chemical names. Many of the compounds had a
very small difference in comfort level between the different names, like
Tylenol, Borax, and DEET; but many products had a large difference in
comfort level.

NDSU Students' Comfort Level with Various Chemicals

Common Name

Chemical Name

Figure 1: Comfort levels for various chemicals calculated by totaling

the number of student responses that were comfortable using the
product and dividing it by the total responses and then converted to a
percent.
Another comparison was made regarding the distribution of
majors/colleges of the students who completed the survey. We
compared the average comfort level of using the common name of
each product to using the chemical name of each product by finding
the difference between the two (Figure 2). The College of Science and
Mathematics had the least difference between the different names,
while the College of University Studies had the greatest difference
(N=7). Notably, the College of University Studies had a sample size of
1, so this data is heavily skewed. Taken this into effect, the College of
Health Professions had the greatest difference (N=10).
It was also found that there was relatively no difference in
comfort level for either the common name or the chemical name
between men and women (Figure 3).

Average Comfort Level Difference Between Common and Chemical Names of Various Compounds

Figure 2: The difference was taken between the average comfort

level of using the common name of each product and the chemical
name. (Example: Comfort level Vinegar Comfort level acetic acid)
The differences of all the compounds were averaged and reported.

Comfort Levels of Males vs. Females

Common Name
Chemical Name

Figure 3: Average comfort level for common names vs. chemical

name compared between sexes.

Discussion
From the results we have gathered, the majority of people felt
the most comfortable and most likely to use the household chemicals
when they knew the common name rather than the chemical name.
There were only three chemicals that we tested that had a relatively
small difference in the comfort level between the common and
chemical names. A significant amount of participants were comfortable
with Tylenol and acetaminophen, this could likely be because people
would ingest this chemical as it is a medicine. Many people pay more
attention to chemicals that they will be ingesting. Deet was also a
product that many people were comfortable with both names. This
could be because it is used as bug spray, which can be used in many
different occasions. It would be particularly interesting if another study
focused primarily on medicines and their common name compared to
their active ingredient. It is also interesting to note that the College of
Health Professions had the greatest difference between the different
names. People might believe that students in this college should be
more comfortable with both names, as they have a more chemically
based educational background and would encounter these chemicals
more frequently. We only included one medicinal product in our survey,
which would be where the students from this college probably feel
most comfortable. As expected, the College of Science and
Mathematics had the least difference between the different names.
This could be due to the fact that they are exposed to the chemical
names more often because of certain classes they might have to take,
such as upper-level chemistry and lab classes. When comparing the
different comfort levels between men and women, the results were
almost exactly the same. This shows that peoples comfort levels of
common name versus chemical name have no difference relative to
sex.
A different area that our results could be applied to is the
marketing industry. For instance, since many people are comfortable
with a name brand item such as Tylenol then that company could have
more of a monopoly in that product area because not many people
would know the active ingredient and look for a more generic and
possibly cheaper version. The results from our experiment indicate that
this would be likely to happen because many were more comfortable
with the common names versus the chemical names. Another problem
that arises with being more comfortable with only the common name is
if you have to look for that product when abroad. In many countries the
common name changes for products, so it would be beneficial for
knowing the active ingredient of the product rather than only the
common name. Again, this is evident in our results, as people are more

9
aware of the common name. Lastly, another problem that stems from
not knowing the actual chemical name or active ingredient is the fact
that people can be scared of something for no reason. This was shown
with the dihydrogen monoxide debacle, where people ended up having
a fear of water, as they did not know the chemical name. Our research
shows that people are more likely to recognize the common name, and
with more education and awareness for the active chemical name
these problems would likely decrease.
Our study had some limitations such as a small sample size and
small age range as it was only college students participating. It would
be interesting to see the study replicated with participants from
outside the Midwest and with a larger age range, as well as adding
more chemicals. It would also be of interest if the common names and
chemical names were split up into categories, such as medicine,
cleaning use, and outdoor use. Furthermore, replicating the study in
other countries outside of the United States could yield different results
as well, like different marketing strategies or maybe chemical names
are known more than common names unlike in the U.S. Other research
can be done to see the impacts of consumer knowledge of chemicals in
marketing industries. Another study could focus on if most consumers
perceive chemicals to be bad versus useful. Since most participants
were more comfortable with the common name of products, future
research can focus on the impact that has on companies and how
marketing strategies differ.

10

References
1. Harvey, F. Household chemicals' 'cocktail effect' raises cancer concerns for
watchdog. The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/10/household-chemicalscancer-concern-watchdog (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
2. Paint and Coatings Industry Overview. - Chemical Economics Handbook (CEH),
https://www.ihs.com/products/paint-and-coatings-industry-chemical-economicshandbook.html (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
3. Occupational Health Guideline for Acetic Acid. Niosh,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0002.pdf (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
4. What Is a Chemical? Ask a Chemistry Teacher. Education,
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/whatchemical.htm (accessed Apr
14, 2016).
5. Chemicals in food: Top chemical food myths debunked...naturally! [video].
American Chemistry Matters,
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/07/chemicals-in-food-top-chemicalfood-myths-debunkednaturally-video/ (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
6. The Burn Foundation - www.burnfoundation.org - Burn Prevention. Prevention
Education Treatment Recovery,
http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1 (accessed Apr 14,
2016).
7. Dihydrogen Monoxide FAQ. Facts about Dihydrogen Monoxide,
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
8. Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) Requirements. U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, http://www.cpsc.gov/en/business-manufacturing/business-education/business-guidance/fhsa-requirements/
(accessed Apr 14, 2016).
9. NFPA Rating Explanation Guide. http://www.compliancesigns.com/media/nfpafire-protection/1000/NFPA-704-NFPA-Diamonds-Sign-NFPA-Chart_2_1000.gif
10. IUPAC Nomenclature Home Page. IUPAC Nomenclature Home Page,
http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/ (accessed Apr 14, 2016).
11. Blancke, S.; Breusegem, F. V.; Jaeger, G. D.; Braeckman, J.; Montagu, M. V. Fatal
Attraction: the Intuitive Appeal of GMO Opposition. Trends in Plant Science.
2015, 20, 414418.

11