Talk:Sulfur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Sulfur as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbian language Wikipedia.

	Chemistry Portal This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) I'm not an expert on chemistry althought I have learned a lot lately by reading Wiki. I was wondering about burning sulphur; I know it's an ingridient in gun powder. But at what temperature/conditions does sulphur burn by itself, converting to SO2 or SO3?

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: I'm not an expert on chemistry althought I have learned a lot lately by reading Wiki. I was wondering about burning sulphur; I know it's an ingridient in gun powder. But at what temperature/conditions does sulphur burn by itself, converting to SO2 or SO3? (edit)

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers and maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:41, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 10:41, 23 Jun 2005).

Contents 1 Information Sources 2 Spelling 3 Sulphur dioxide & hydrogen disulphide confusion 4 Editing Needed? 5 Liquid sulfur allotropes 6 Taurine 7 Octasulfur 8 SIR 9 Sulfuric Acid 10 Odor? 11 Whatever happened to valency? 12 Spelling confusing 13 "sulvere" ? 14 Islands that reek of sulphur 15 Sulfur as a Commodity 16 irrelevant joke is not NPOV 17 can sulfur be ingested by humans 18 how many protons? 19 Opposite of Greenhouse gas? 20 Sulphur and the QCA 21 Atmosphere 22 S3- Ion? 23 The colour of Sulfur 24 Oxidation number 25 Ketone 26 Does sulphur react with dilute hydrochloric acid?

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Sulfur. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Sulfur Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Sulfur, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

[edit] Spelling

Why is it that the world sans Britan wants "f" in Sulfur, while it's "ph" in others (Phosphorus, Telephone) TELEFONE?

Sulfur has a Latin root. The Latin alphabet contains an f. Phosphorus has a Greek root. The Greek alphabet contains a phi. Go figure. User:Shimmin

AFAIK, the Romans themselves used PH when transcribing the Greek letter Φ ("phi"). Today that letter sounds "F" in Greek, but perhaps it wasn't so at the time.Jorge Stolfi 23:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But why doe they say, that "sulphur" is the traditional British spelling? Is this a retroactive graecisation? 62.46.175.173

  Well obviously you can't spell it is BRITAIN.
  ps. It should be sulphur82.42.127.81 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this title hasn't been given an NPOV rant. I'm pretty sure it should be sulfur (as it's more popular) but it could be considered POV because it technically is!

I'm not sure that sulfur is more popular. KingStrato

FYI, the IUPAC standard spelling is "sulfur" –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Sulphur is the traditional British spelling, it's the way I was taught to spell it. I was also taught to use colour, honour and centre. We don't argue over how they are spelt so why do we with sulphur/sulfur? I shall continue to use sulphur and accept that other people use sulfur. I am, until proved otherwise, unwilling to accept that sulfur is the more common spelling. Given that sulphur is used in india I would imagine there's quite a few people use that spelling. KingStrato 10:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sulfur is the technical spelling, but Sulphur is an accepted variant. Likewise, while Aluminium is the correct spelling, Aluminum is an accepted variant.

Surely if one wants to produce an encycolpedia in English one should spell in English, not "American English". Sulphur is the primary spelling of the word, sulfur is a varient which has come about with a local dialect.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that the IUPAC decided to go with 'Sulfur', but that decision always struck me as being a bit strange. The OED lists many instances of the word through time including: 13## - soufre, 1390 - sulphre, 1420 - sulphure, 1549 - sulfure, 1595 - sulphur (which is the first reference to this particular spelling) and eventually going down the list we get to the first reference to ‘sulfur’ in 1953. Furthermore, ‘sulfur’ doesn’t even get an entry in the dictionary, merely a note under the alternate spellings. (From which you could also choose “4-7 sulphre, 5-7 sulphure, 5, 7, 9 (now U.S.) sulfur, 6-7 sulpher, (4 soufre, soulphre, 5 solfre, 6 sulfure, sulfre, sulphyr, 7 sulfer), 5- sulphur.”)

I’m not an expert on the roots of words but under etymology it says “:--L. sulfur(em), sulphur(em)” which means “normal development of Latin", this suggests to me that both spellings seem valid, though whilst 'sulphur' was common from the 1590's onwards, 'sulfur' appears to have become popular in America from the 1950's onwards. As for "This spelling has begun to replace its variant in educated circles", I would say it hasn't got very far... I'm not aware of any my lecturers using the 'accepted' spelling in the time I've been at University... --Shastrix 19:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why does this seem so weird? I am guessing this is one of strangest arguments ever heard on Wikipedia. The correct spelling is S-U-L-F-U-R. The other spelling is S-U-L-P-H-U-R. Case closed, you are dismissed. We do not need all this junk cluttering up the discussion page. I really do not understand why it matters. The only thing of immediate importance is that only one type is used in the article. Now quit messing up the talk page!--uki--71.145.143.245 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think this argument is strange - or if you are about to register a complaint about the apparent preferance for US spelling - take a look at the furore caused by Wikipedia following the IUPAC preferred spelling of "aluminium" over "aluminum": Talk:Aluminium/Spelling --Danward 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that it's you that are strange. As far as I can tell, the person is not arguing anything. They are just wondering why the IUPAC adopted sulfur instead of sulphur since it doesn't make sense to them. They are not suggesting as far as I can tell that anyone change the naming of the article or anything of the sort (unlike occurs with the aluminium article). It is simply a interesting discussion of background and history and logic of the choice of IUPAC. Of course, what they are talking about is OT and is best left for discussion elsewhere. However I don't get why you've gotten so worked up about it. Just tell them that their discussion, although interesting, is not about improving this article and so is best left for elsewhere. Nil Einne 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try regarding the Latin versus Greek thing but let's face facts: American English is a bastard of the English language, it has numerous words which are simplified forms of the correct spelling, is it because Americans cannot spell I wonder? Stutley 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm English and I also have to say the above comment doesnt make sense. English is clearly a bastardised version of french, german, celt, latin, greek et al!--Alex Marshall 12:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any clue to whether or not this will help at all, but I found out that the spelling of S-U-L-F-U-R is derived from the Latin spelling of S-U-L-P-H-U-R. So by this information, it seems to me that the correct spelling nowadays should be sulfur. But that's just my opinion. Check my information on the website http://periodictable.mysterymaster.com/sulfur.html. Thank you, Taekwondo_Tiger_Girl_22

The correct spelling in the English language is SULPHUR. You may choose to spell it how you wish but it will not be correct use of English. Stutley 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I notied that the disambiguation page has sulphur spelt with a ph. I think this should be changed to sulfur for the sake of continuity, regardless of personal opinion (I spell it sulphur). --SHCGRA Max 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If any one has the time to have a look, theres also an issue with Acid suphate soil (acid sulphate soils, acid sulfate soil and acid sulfate soils). Theres four separate pages for essentially the same thing. Clovis Sangrail 11:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged by User:Vsmith into acid sulfate soil. By the way, your posting time is off. You can autosign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Femto 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the English actually invented the language and not the Americans or Romans perhaps we should change its spelling here. If we had wanted to spell sulphur with an "f" we wouldn't have started spelling it with a "ph". So since there are probably more people who actually spell the word correctly why don't we change the entire article to sulphur with a "ph". solidus469 14:46, 15th July 2007

No, this will not happen. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element names. The Chemistry Wikiproject has decided that in any chemistry context in Wikipedia, sulfur is to be spelled with an F.

Ben 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well but it is still incorrect. solidus46914:27, 17th July 2007

No, it's not incorrect, it is a convention.

Ben 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, why should the whole world have to spell sulphur differently just because America spells it that way? solidus469 8:21 18th July 2007

Sadly - not everyone in America is linguistically challenged. I find it very unscholarly to A.) presume that an entire nation uses one "variant" and even more-so to think that you can have some sort of impact on the new direction of linguistics by doing so little as changing the classically accepted norm of a given term which, if you can't readily tell, seems to be the only thing this is attempting.

I object to saying 'sulfur' is used in Australia and New Zealand; I've never seen it spelled like that before in either country.

IMHO sulfur looks stupid. And, my science teacher spells it Sulphur, and she is always right ;-) so SULPHUR! tractakid (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sulphur dioxide & hydrogen disulphide confusion

The Precautions section seems to confuse sulfur dioxide and hydrogen disulfide. Isn't the smell-deadening effect specific to the latter? (Methinks that SO2 would go straight from pungent to painful to lethal.) Also elemental sulfur does not seem to be as dangerous as its compounds.Jorge Stolfi 23:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree the precautions section needs serious corrections. It claims the smell-deadening effect for sulphur (Jorge is right, it's actually H2S), and describes elemental sulphur itself as "deadly" (actually it's toxicity is low.) In addition, the toxic effects of inhaling sulphur dioxide are wildly exaggerated; it's a significant irritant and a respiratory suppressant, it doesn't cause "immediate bleeding"!. I will make corrections when I get time later today, unless someone else does first. (I also intent to expand the allotropes from a single line to a subsection, and move "amorphous sulphur" there from its incorrect position under "compounds"). Securiger 00:59, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, people... Mea culpa (my bad). I was misinformed. This information was word of mouth from someone I respected, but the words were several years old when I wrote them here, so I must have gotten it way wrong. Please forgive, and please correct me? I would correct the info myself but I know I'm not the expert. Thanks for your attention to detail. Humbly, -- JustAnyone | [[User talk::Justanyone|talk]] 4/28/2004 10:32 pm CDT

[edit] Editing Needed?

I noticed that when I first came to the main article page, I saw the huge empty space that the info box created. Is there any way that someone can fix it? (I would do it myself, only I don't really know how to do anything right now..ha ha.) Thank you kindly, Taekwondo_Tiger_Girl_22

[edit] Liquid sulfur allotropes

In liquid stage and in normal pressure, there are 3 sulfur allotropes: A yellow liquid sulfur (S8). Then brown rubber-like mass [(S)n]. Final liquid sulfur allotrope is a brown liquid (S8, S6 etc.)

[edit] Taurine

Taurine is listed as an example of a sulfur-containing amino acid, yet the Taurine page states that it is often misconceived as an amino acid, although it is not.

[edit] Octasulfur

That description of the appearance of Octasulfur is horrible. I STILL don't understand how it looks, even after hours of searching on the web...

A zig-zag ring. Like VVVVV...

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 2006/3/6 | 22:30 CET

Imagine a ring of V's where each point is an atom of sulfur. Das Nerd 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIR

I came across this soil science and biology related subject today. Hopefully, one of us will be able to develop it into a stand-alone article.

Sulfur-induced resistance (SIR) "defines a phenomenon of enhanced tolerance against pathogens when crop plants are optimally supplied with sulfur."[1] (Question in my mind: fungal pathogens mainly or exclusively?)

"Enhanced tolerance of crop plants with optimal sulfate supply to fungal pathogens provides a new approach to improve plant health and yield." [1]

"SIR has been verified for seven host/pathogen relations."[2]

"The potential of SIR in reducing fungal attacks under field conditions has been estimated to 17-35%. " [2]

"The mechanisms of this sulfur-induced resistance (SIR) are, however, not yet known." [3]

"The role of sulfur (S) in the resistance of crops against diseases became obvious at the end of the 1980s when atmospheric S depositions were so much reduced by clean air acts that S deficiency became a widespread nutrient disorder in European agriculture. ... It has been long known that foliar applied elemental S has a fungicidal impact but only recently could it be shown that soil-applied S in the form of sulphate also had a significant effect on the health status of crops. A significant repressive effect of soil-applied S on the infection of oilseed rape with Pyrenopeziza brassicae, grapes with Uncinula necator, and potato tubers with Rhizoctonia solani was found. The results of these experiments indicate that S metabolites are involved in disease resistance and support the concept of sulphur-induced resistance (SIR). The S metabolism of plants offers several possibilities to combat fungal attacks and different metabolites were investigated with respect to their role in SIR. For instance elemental S depositions in the vascular tissue of resistant cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in response to infection with Verticillium dahliae were attributed to the toxicity of elemental S. Other mechanisms to combat biotic stress, which are provided by S metabolism, involve glutathione (GSH), phytoalexins, glucosinolates, and the release of S-containing volatiles. H2S is cytotoxic and therefore a relationship between increasing H2S emissions and the resistance of crops against pest and diseases is possible." (and this source continues with additional background information from there)[3]

[1] http://sulfur.ipk-gatersleben.de/research.htm

[2] http://www.idw-online.de/pages/de/news135270

[3] http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/55/406/2305

Paleorthid 19:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sulfuric Acid

A description of the mechanism by which sulfuric acid is created in the Environmental Impact section would be appreciated.

→should the uses of sulfuric acid be meantioned?

[edit] Odor?

Like my chemistry teacher, the article states that sulfur is odorless. But I can smell it. The odor is very distinctive -- and totally different from the famous stench of hydrogen sulfide with which it is impossible to confuse. What am I smelling when I sniff at sulfur crystals?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 2006/3/6 | 22:32 CET

Raw Sulfur is odorless when it is pure S atoms, the odor is caused by the S ions that occur in very small quantitis to the bulk.Das Nerd 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sulfur in its solid state has a finite vapor pressure, and sublimes to form a gas, which will eventually condense into crystalline form again. This process is one way to purify raw sulfur, by collecting the sublimed crystals on a condenser (flowers of sulfur). Sulfur vapor has a distinctive odor, not altogether unpleasant, and this is what you are detecting when you sniff sulfur crystals.

Most sulfur compounds reek like ass.Cameron Nedland 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever happened to valency?

I was very surprised to see that the article doesn't mention the valencies of sulphur. Surely they should be in the infobox? Loom91 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The valency information is listed in both the article and info box. It is listed under Oxidation states, the accepted term to describe the outermost electron shell and bonding nature.Das Nerd 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So wikipedia articles are only for those who know everything to begin with. No need to make it accessible to the millions who know valency by the name valency and not oxidation states? Should accessibility be sacrificed to make way for jargon? Loom91 07:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nay, oxidation state is the term that is taught these days as opposed to the dated term valency. I learned it initially as valence theory (not so many years ago in high school) and it progressed onto oxidation states. If you check the articles on valence and valency it should refer you in the article to oxidation states in some manner.Das Nerd 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that it PROGRESSED into oxidation states. Few people have a higher education in chemistry. A person looking for the valency of an element may arrive at the wikipedia article on that element and it doesn't seem a good thing to turn him away just because we couldn't resist the temptation to show off how much we know. Loom91 07:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Firstly, this is an encyclopedia not a text book. A user who wants to know about valency, should check out the valency article. It's not a matter of showing off how much we know but a matter of accuracy and consistency. For example, just because the average user may not know the difference between a bacteria and a virus, it doesn't mean we should use the two terms interchangably. Instead, we use the terms accurately and let the user find out for what the difference between the two are. Nil Einne 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't get taught valency until this year at university. All through secondary school I've known it as oxidation state.

see also related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Valency in infobox --Femto 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• But couldn't you just put in parentheses the term valency so all us dumb people know what you are talking about? Even I didn't know what oxidation that meant until I read this article on the talk page. Also, I think i might add that my class is studying atoms and the sort right now in school and we learned the term "valency" instead of oxidation. Thanks anyways, this_froggy_goes_ribbit_ribbit 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• In Australia, it is taught in secondary schools as valency. We have valency tables, and we learn the valencies of all the elements, and work out the valencies of products from a reaction. Oxidation is occasionally mentioned as additional knowledge.--211.30.230.115 08:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that valence and oxidation state are NOT exactly the same thing. Valence is the number of single bonds that an atom can form; oxidation state is the charge that an atom would have if the electrons were distributed according to certain rules. As an example of the difference, osmium can have an oxidation state of +8, but there are no known octavalent osmium compounds (at least last time I checked). --Itub 11:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling confusing

The IUPAC adopted the spelling "sulfur" in 1990, as did the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee in 1992. This spelling has begun to replace its variant in official use, unlike aluminum, a spelling which is not commonly used outside North America.

This is rather confusing. The preferred spelling for aluminium according to IUPAC is aluminium, aluminum is only an alternative (but not preferred) spelling. So it's not surprising that aluminum is not used outside the US and there's no reason for aluminum to replace aluminium in official literature, indeed it's the other way around. Nil Einne 14:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we even need to mention aluminum at all? There are lots of words that are spelled differently in different countries. Joe --68.0.212.218 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't really get why this is so important. I mean, come on! Arguing about the way "sulfur(a.k.a. sulphur) is spelled! And as for aluminum(a.k.a. aluminium), same thing! In my science class's text book, it spells sulfur and aluminum a certain way, and I bet that in Britain it is spelled a different way. So what? I don't get it. Oh well, Taekwondo_Tiger_Girl_22 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand sulphur vs sulfur. Sulfur is easier to spell, quicker to write, but is pronounced the same. However aluminium and aluminum are not pronouced the same, which is why that shouldn't be changed. (Not that I agree with the changed to sulphur's spelling, I can just understand why it got through while aluminium's didn't.)Lordbanana 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you change the spelling of sulphur to "sulfur" why not by the same logic change the word phosphorus to "fosforus". The ph spelling in the name Indicates its roots in latten. The ph spelling is also a slightly softer sound than that of f.

[edit] "sulvere" ?

"Sulvere" is a word not found in my Sanskrit dictionary—nor does a googling of the form Devanagarized return any results—and the presence of an L indicates it would be a loanword anyway. According to the page history, an anon already brought this point up but the statement was later removed without special comment by User:Eudyptes, who however retained that anon's unsourced conjecture on the word's Arabic origin, which is still in the article. A quick Google Book Search shows it's not hard to find any shortage of books mentioning "sulvere" in books on chemistry, but . . . I'd like to see an appearance of "sulvere" in a Sanskrit reference or its usage in a Sanskrit text, and reason it should appear here (as opposed to, say, the language it borrowed the word from). —Muke Tever talk 21:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islands that reek of sulphur

I went to the Eolian Islands recently, Lipari was very nice, but Vulcan (I think) reeked of sulphur. It had a mud bath and hot springs, and the whole thing was all right after a few minutes (senses adjusted, I suppose), but the first thing we noticed was that it smelled awful. So how about a mention of these sorts of places? I'm not even sure of their geological name, but I'm sure someone does. --198.53.200.80 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sulfur as a Commodity

Sulfur is a very important commodity sold in bulk form world wide. The primary use for bulk sulfur is to make sulfuric acid, a key ingredient in phosphate fertilizer.

Does anyone feel that info about the commerical market for sulfur is relevant to main sulfur entry? Bevanhouston 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. There is only a sentence or two about it in the "Applications" section. It's certainly worth expanding on that. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] irrelevant joke is not NPOV

I think that the reference to any joke about the temperature of Hell has no place in an article about sulfur. Being that it is a joke about a religious belief, it cannot be made NPOV. The physical properties of sulfur are objectively quantified. The "joke" is clearly biased. I recommend permanent deletion. —Denver75.192.164.149 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] can sulfur be ingested by humans

What forms of sulfur can be ingested by humans as a preventive health role. Is it benefical as a cleaning agent to our bodies or is it deadly is comsummed in any quanity. Thanks cd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.45.205 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC). A century ago, sulfer was mixed with mollasis as a spring tonic. High purity sulfer is not very toxic, but some of the impurities are poisonous, bad smelling and/or bad tasting. Ccpoodle 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how many protons?

how many protons does the sulfur have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.113.58.253 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

It has 16 protons. Hope this helps! --LuigiManiac 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposite of Greenhouse gas?

Though its a main component of acid rain I heard that sulfur (or some kind of form of it) in the atmosphere has a cooling effect. It deflects incoming solar radiation while allowing heat to radiate off into space. Is this true at all? If not I must have read wrong, because I remember the USAD Climatology guide saying that a certain gas is capable of reversing the greenhouse gas effect.

This is english wikipedia right? (en.wikipedia.org) So the spelling should be sulphur. The american spelling is sulfur, i accept that. There should be both an american and british version of wikipedia to stop this argument, because it will not stop...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.182.229 (talk)

In a perfect world, we'd all use sulphur. I kid, I kid. Really, there are not enough differences to warrant such a split. If anything, the split would do more harm than good, as it splits the workforce and doubles the work for English speakers. I'm sure this suggestion has been discussed to death already, and consensus appeared to be against splitting if I remember right. --LuigiManiac 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur is the correct spelling worldwide, even in Britain where I come from. IUPAC adopted the spelling in around 1990 I think. Same with aluminium; that's also the correct spelling worldwide. --John 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John is right, plus the Chemistry Wikiproject has decided that in any chemistry context in Wikipedia, sulfur is to be spelled with an F - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element names.

I'm a chemist, I'm English, and I always spell sulfur with an F because it is a standardised spelling. I think visitors to this article and any other in Wikipedia should stop requesting spelling changes, accept WP:CHEMISTRY's decision and get on with their lives. In fact, I think the spelling sulphur will become increasingly marginalised over time until it disappears.

Ben 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sulphur and the QCA

According to the article, the QCA decreed several years ago that "sulfur" should be the spelling used in British schools. Has the QCA stuck to this judgement? This looks doubtful. Searching google for sulphur site:qca.org.uk there are 42 results, and a further 17 for sulphuric, whereas searching for sulfur site:qca.org.uk there are 0 results, and 0 for sulfuric. And the article's notion that "sulfur" is already becoming the dominant spelling in Britain looks to be far-fetched. sulphur site:.uk has 655,000 results; sulfur site:.uk has 133,000 (though I'll admit I find that surprisingly high). Sulphur has more than 2,000 occurrences on the news.bbc.co.uk website, sulfur 18. On thetimes.co.uk it's 17:1 in favour of sulphur; guardian.co.uk about 10:1; independent.co.uk more than 100:1. 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)~~

[edit] Atmosphere

The SO2 in the atmosphere doesn't make H2SO4 it makes H2SO3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjbroom (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SO2 + H2O -> H2SO3, no doubt. But the atmosphere also has O2, so another possible reaction is SO2 + H2O + 1/2O2 -> H2SO4. A good question is how much SO2 turns into H2SO3 and how much into H2SO4. You may have to ask an atmospheric chemist, because I have no idea. ;-) --Itub 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S₃^- Ion?

Does anyone know what this ion is called? It is mentioned in the article Ultramarine.RSido 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The analogous oxygen anion is called ozonide. I don't know if the sulfur ion has a trivial name, but a systematic name would be something like "trisulfide radical anion". --Itub 12:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Chivers, Tristram "Ubiquitous trisulfur radical anion" Nature (1974), 252, 32-3.--Smokefoot 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The colour of Sulfur

In the article it says that S₇ is responsible for the yellow colour of sulfur. I am working on an allotropes of sulfur article and none of my references back this up. Does anyone know any different? Axiosaurus 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of S₇. Sounds like a typo. S₈ is the common allotrope I remember from the sulfur chapter in basic chem. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is this S7 content that causes the bright yellow color of most commercial sulfur samples while pure S8 is greenish-yellow..." R. Steudel in Elemental Sulfur and Sulfur-Rich Compounds" R. Steudel (ed.) Many of the various rings have been well characterized, mostly in the 70's. Four allotropes of S7 are known.--Smokefoot 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm an older geezer, so my textbooks all predate the 70's. But it's good to learn something new every day. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxidation number

What's the oxidation number of the sulfur in Disulfur Heptoxide? I thought it's 7... --24.40.202.246 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's +7. SBHarris 05:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. No way. It is a kind of peroxide where oxigen has the oxidation number -1 instead of -2. Say 5 of the oxigens have -2 and 2 have -1; this leaves both S atoms with +6. Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Check Higher sulfur oxides for details. Nergaal (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ketone

Sulfoxides have the form R-S(=O)-R′. A common sulfoxide is DMSO. This is the sulfur equivalent of ketones, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you asked me what the sulfur equivalent of a ketone was, I'd say a thioketone.

Sulfoxides are different from ketones in several ways:

• sulfoxides are pyramidal, whereas ketones are planar

• sulfoxides can be oxidised to sulfones, but there is no carbon equivalent of a sulfone

• sulfoxides can be reduced to thioethers, but there is no stable carbon equivalent of a thioether (the closest being a carbene)

• sulfoxides are excellent ligands (at sulfur), unlike ketones

Ben (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does sulphur react with dilute hydrochloric acid?

Does it? 88.107.22.193 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)