# contaminant / pollutant



## Malacandra

¡Hola a todos!

Estuve leyendo los hilos sobre este tema, pero no sé cómo hacer la diferencia entre los dos términos en español.

¿Podría ser que "pollutant" sea "sustancia contaminante" y "contaminant" solo "contaminante"?

Me parece que es lo mismo, pero no se me ocurre otra cosa, la verdad.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## watercanyon

Pollutant se refiere una idea de sucio *(suciedad)*, especialmenta en el agua, e incluyendo los químicos, basura como botellas de plástico, llantas, y otro tipos de objetos que no son normal es en el agua fresca o del mar.  Un contaminante es normalmente un química que no es normal en el agua, o si tengo un ácido el la piel.  La radiación es un contaminante, también, por el aire o tierra.


----------



## Malacandra

Claro, pero mi problema es que el autor dice que "pollutant" no es lo mismo que "contaminant". Ahora, ¿cómo traduzco "pollutant"? Porque no lo puedo traducir como contaminante también (creo) 

¡Gracias!


----------



## watercanyon

Creo *la* respuesta est*á* en el contexto del artículo,porque el definicion simple de una pollutant esta una cosa que producir pollucion, y pollucion esta algo que esta sucio.  Definition of POLLUTE

Las diferencias entre las palabras son en el applicacion de ideas mas que simplemente los palabras.


----------



## Ilialluna

Hola. Yo diría "contaminante" y "polucionante".
Saludos.


----------



## Malacandra

That's right... you've given me an idea of what to do . Thanks watercanyon!


----------



## Malacandra

Ilialluna said:


> Hola. Yo diría "contaminante" y "polucionante".
> Saludos.



¡Claro! La verdad que no sabía que existía esa palabra  

¡Gracias!


----------



## Ilialluna

Hola de nuevo. La verdad es que la RAE no lo contempla, pero sí "polucionar". Y si buscas "polucionantes" en el Google, aparecen montones de entradas.
¡Suerte!.


----------



## projectguy

While "contaminant" and "pollutant" are synonymous when dealing with environmental matters, "pollutant" is not appropriate when dealing with the contamination of a pure chemical substance with another material, or the contamination of a bacterial culture. So it's important to know the context...

I find the same distinction in Spanish:

In WR Diccionario de la lengua española, these two definitions relate to the above:

Alterar la pureza de algunas cosas:
contaminar los alimentos.
Contagiar una enfermedad:
se ha contaminado con el virus del sida


----------



## Mtiramisu

Quiero aclarar algo para todas las personas que se meten a leer esta publicación porque siento que hay una distinción bien clara entre "contaminant" y "pollutant" que no esta aquí y por esa razón creo que es importante diferenciar ambas palabras en español. Un "contaminant" es una substancia extraña que contamina otra substancia o ambiente. Un "pollutant" es una sustancia dañina contamina un ambiente. Ejemplo. Si yo tengo un vaso con agua y le agrego unas gotas de vino, estoy contaminando el agua, pero eso no hace que sea dañino para nadie. En cambio si un vehículo emite CO al aire las partículas de CO causan daños a una persona, por ende sería un "pollutant". Espero que eso les aclare la diferencia


----------



## epinilla64

Completamente de acuerdo Mtiramisu, ese es el matiz.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

Mtiramisu said:


> Si yo tengo un vaso con agua y le agrego unas gotas de vino, estoy contaminando el agua


Still, I do not think you can say wine is a (water) _contaminant_.
I have found this link where the main differences between pollutants and contaminants are clearly described (both being unwanted and waste materials). And yet, the problem translating those terms into Spanish remains unchanged, as Malacandra showed years ago; we do not make such differentiations in Spanish, describing both pollutants and contaminants as "_contaminantes_". 
Only the specific context where any of those terms -or both- are used could give us a hint of how best to translate each one.


----------



## Mtiramisu

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> Still, I do not think you can say wine is a (water) _contaminant_.


 This is just an example using random materials but tecnically you are introducing a foreign matter into the water, so chemically speaking it is a contaminant. In a kitchen if they are baking or cooking something gluten free for example they have separate facilities and storage areas to avoid cross-contamination, whis is the same thing.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

Mtiramisu said:


> they have separate facilities and storage areas to avoid cross-contamination


Yes; I fully agree on the adequacy of the verb _contamination_ within the given context but not so with your otherwise perfect logic when _contaminant_ is shoe-horned in there. 
[And talking about "contaminating" water with wine, for a wine-lover Spaniard like myself it would _always_ be water and not wine the "_contaminant_" in such a particular chemical combination ]

I believe you have described the difference between _contaminant_ and _pollutant_ based on the definition of _contaminant_ as "_something that contaminates_". And although I understand the logic in that, I believe it might be misguiding the actual sense of _contaminant_ -versus _pollutant- _in English; reading _contaminant_ _as "*a polluting or poisonous substance* that makes something impure" _might help understanding why that sort of logic should not be used to differentiate _contaminant_ from _pollutant_. 
Anyhow, needless to say, this is just a personal opinion.


----------



## Mtiramisu

Read this...I think it is very clear:
Difference Between Pollutant and Contaminant


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

Thanks Mtiramisu!
I had read the link before and it is very clean and clear, and it defitinely follows your own logic; to compare pollution from contamination rather than pollutant from contaminant -or the take the former pair as equivalent to the latter one. As you have surely noticed, the conclusion of the text is that a pollutant is a (type of) contaminant. And this is exactly what I was referring to before; the logic based on what contamination is cannot take you any further than that in differentiating contaminant from pollutant; this is, that one (the pollutant in this case) is a "subclass" of the other (the contaminant).
Following a different logic (levels of harmful effects), Nur Alam concludes here just the opposite; that a contaminant can be a pollutant -when it exerts detrimental effect on human health. 

I have already said that the specific context where any or both terms are used will surely help clarify the intended meaning of the author -as many times both pollutant and contaminant are used as synonyms! But from a general point of view, if I see both terms used together as differentiated terms (pollutants _and_ contaminants) I would not naturally assume that they are used as if one were just a particular case of the second term. 

With that in mind, Safeopedia's definitions of pollutant and contaminant are quite clear also (and it does actually accept -up to some point- your own version, so you may like it!):



> Pollutants are introduced through direct or indirect human intervention of substances into the environment. These pollutants result in harm to living organisms and pose acute or chronic hazards to human health.
> 
> Contaminants are high levels of extraneous often infectious, harmful substances higher than their natural levels of concentration.
> 
> The air in a room can be contaminated with cigarette smoke, which is a human intervention that has released an offensive, harmful substance to the air; perfume can also be deemed a contaminant to the air, which can be a health hazard to someone who is asthmatic or allergic to odors; while an example of a pollutant is smog when city air is polluted by emissions (...).


----------

