From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Elements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

A note[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).


Under "History" it says:

"sulfur, in itself, is in fact odorless"

and then under "Characteristics"

"Elemental sulfur has only a faint odor, similar to that of matches."

My experience is that sulfur definitely does have an odour -- a quite distinctive one in fact. In any case, the two statements are contradictory and need fixing. (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

I think the article is quite clear on what causes the smell you mentioned. There was some repetition in the history section which I have removed now. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Native sulfur redirect[edit]

I feel Native sulfur should have its own page, but I don't have time to write it. Placed a redirect in the mean time.--Polymeris (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 23 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} First request. At the beginning of chapter "History", the Latin word for sulfur should be changed from "sulphurium" to just "sulfur". A source for verifying the requested change could be any Latin dictionary. By the way, in the same Wikipedia page under discussion, in chapter "Spelling and Etymology", it is stated that "in Latin, the word is variously written sulpur, sulphur, sulfur (the Oxford Latin dictionary)". Second request. In the table of the oxidation states of sulfur, value 0 is not reported. But this oxidation state does exist, not only in elemental sulfur, but also in several organo-sulfur compounds, for instance sulfoxides (e. g.: alliin). A source for verifying the requested change could be any (non-elementary) organic chemistry textbook, or the same Wikipedia page about "Sulfoxide".

the oxidation level are dependent on which atom in a bound is closer to the electrons. this is dependent on which atom has the highest electronegative. two atoms of same electro negativity will share equally there pair of electrons. two sulfurs do that and so any pure sulfur will have an oxidation state of 0. for the alliin the electro negativity of carbon and sulfur ar almost the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyns (talkcontribs) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Claudio Giomini151.100.46.19 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I take the liberty of insisting that an oxidation state 0 (zero) does exist for sulfur, not only in elemental sulfur, but also in several organic compounds. Actually, in the Wikipedia article about sulfoxides, it can be read the following sentence: "For example, dimethyl sulfide with oxidation state of -2 is oxidized to dimethyl sulfoxide with oxidation state 0. Further oxidation converts the compound to dimethyl sulfone wherein sulfur has the oxidation state +2". The electronegativity of carbon (as given also by wikipedia in the article about carbon is 2.55, vs. 2.58 for sulfur. It is true that the two values are very close to each other, but in assigning oxidation states it is not important how much different are the electronegativities, but just to acknowledge they are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History section: inaccuracy in transliteration from Sanskrit[edit]

In the history section it is stated that:

"Sulfur (Sanskrit, गन्धक sulvari; Latin Sulphurium) was known in ancient times and is referred to in the Torah (Genesis)."

The devanagari word preceding "sulvari" when transliterated is, however "gandhak" and it does mean sulfur but in hindi. I do not know where 'sulvari' comes from. As far as I could ascertain "gandhak" is also used in Sanskrit. The point is, however, that the transliteration is incorrect. [1] (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Wernervdc

  • Here is a source suggesting that the Sanskrit word starts with a "g" cognate, (something like gulviri) and that accords with your observation that the Hindi word also starts with a "g." This old source: [1] claims this shows they are not cognates. However, in List of chemical element name etymologies it is suggested that the element name is from Arabic "sufra" (bright yellow) and passed into Sanskrit from that route (or at least into Latin from that route). Arabic is a Semitic language while Sanskrit is Indo-European and they are not closely related. Probably there is a loan from one to the other here for sulfur, but we don't know it what direction. Latin is in the Indo-European line, of course, but Latin drew many chemical words from Arabic alchemists. The source given in the Wiki etymolgists article is [2] which actually doesn't mention either Sanskrit or Arabic, but only goes back to Latin. So the trail of verifiable references ends there for now. I'm going to just delete the Hindi word for now, and let this end at Latin, until somebody has better references. Sorry it took more than a year to fix this request. SBHarris 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


I am rearranging some parts to make it compliant to other element articles. The text itself is fairly good. Otherwise, the main reason the article is C-class is because the article needs a lot more references. There are paragraphs in a row without any references. Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gavyns, 8 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} T its about the physiques. the smell of sulfur is sulfur dioxide SO2. it is caused by the slow oxidation of the sulfur in presents of the oxygen of the atmosphere. sulfur wont directly react with hydrogène because there isn't any in the atmosphere and there wont be an exchange of hydrogen's because oxygen is more electronegative than sulfure.

sorry the smell of sulfur is sulfur dioxide SO2 and not H2S (that smell of rotten eggs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyns (talkcontribs) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavyns (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ChemicalPotential, 13 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Chemical reactions under the paragraph Production needs correction: reactants must be H2S not H2 due to the chemical balances/reaction stoichiometry.

ChemicalPotential (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible lead image replacement[edit]

Sulfur sample

Since a better image is definitely needed for this article, how about this one? It's sharp, hi-res, and has a neutral background. It also appears to be a purified lab sample, rather that the native crystals. We may have to ask Ben Mills for some more information, since there is no description. --Ephemeronium (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the crystals in the present lede are nice, although this is hardly ever how you see the element (usually it's compressed "flowers of sulfur" after sublimation, which I would guess is the image at right). I think they both belong in the article, and I'm agnostic about which should go in the infobox. If the infobox crystals are native sulfur, they could usefully go in THAT section. Or as the first picture in second section of the article. Both images have much to recommend them. SBHarris 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the thing. Although it's already in the article now, I think it should be the lead image, for reasons described above. It's better than a low-contrast, low-res snap of a museum cabinet in the Smithsonian. I would change it myself, but other editors may disagree. So I would like another person's opinion before doing so. Also if it's a picture of a native sulfur crystal you want, here are plenty of others on Commons. Why choose that one? --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I like your suggestion, Ephemeronium. File:Sulfur-sample.jpg as the lead image, a better image from w:Commons:Category:Sulfur (minerals) to illustrate native sulfur (File:Soufre natif 3(Italie).jpg, perhaps), and removal File:Sulfur powder.jpg which is redundant and also low quality. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
For an image of native sulfur, I quite like File:SulphurCrystal.jpg, although it was removed from this page a while ago. As for the lead image, I'd be perfectly agreed to changing it now, if there are no oppositions. Do you agree? --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources we need[edit]

There are several books describing the history and applications up to the 1960s

  • Haynes, Williams (1959). Brimstone, The Stone That Burns: The Story of the Frasch Sulphur Industry. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. p. 308. 
  • Kutney, Gerald (2007-01-01). Sulfur: history, technology, applications & industry. ISBN 9781895198379. 
  • Haynes, Williams (1942). The stone that burns;: The story of the American sulphur industry. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. p. 345. 

--Stone (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2008 price peak[edit]

The price peak of over 500$/ton from the normal level before and after of 50$ might nice to be mentioned in the text.

--Stone (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Acid Rain (remove)[edit]

I recommend removal of the acid rain photo because it is not referenced in the text, and there is no referenced evidence that the dead trees in the photograph were harmed by acid rain; the photo is neither relevant nor verifiable.--Ryan Westafer (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

quality scale assessment[edit]

B-Class review

Great. Gunna change the header.
  • The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
Several sections are unreferenced.
Greenwood is cited two times
  • The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
Now its nearly 100 years since the wrong claim that crater Aristarchus is made from sulfur (green cheeses would be equally right)
Killed it.
Where does the sulfur in Sicily come from?
The possibility to produce sulfuric acid also from pyrite should be mentioned and that that method was historic the more important one until sulfur became cheap by using the Frash extraction method
The history section deals with the use in furniture decoration. Was this the only important use in Modern times??????
Fungicide and pesticide says Some livestock owners set out a sulfur salt block as a salt lick. So they use it to kill fungi and pest within the livestock?????
  • The article has a defined structure.
ancient bacteria on sulfate deposits is mentioned two times
  • The article is reasonably well-written.
S8 or S8 should be used consistent
Polymeric sulfur the fact that the material looks and feels like rubber should be mentioned
fossil-based sulfur deposits from salt domes have, until recently, been the basis for commercial production the decade in which the change happened wpuld be good to mention
some intestinal gases if it is a fart call it a fart or would this be political incorrect
Wikipedia has an article on farts, but in element articles, per Britannica, it's probably as unencyclopedic as other vulgar terms. Certainly, it would cause lots of laughs if we put it in.
Flatulence would be also be OK.
SO42- → SO32- → H2S → cysteine this very unbalanced reaction needs some explaination
  • The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
An image of Block Sulfur Storage in Canada must be incorporated
Anybody got one?
flickr has one.
  • The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
  • OK

more to come --Stone (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

SBHarris 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
-Stone (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


I just came across this article Seems like sulfur-35 can also be produced from chlorine by neutron bombardement apart from spallation of Argon-40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"All elements except the noble gases"[edit]

Surely we haven't tested whether sulfur forms compounds with all of the transuranic elements, nor francium or astatine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Allotrope count[edit]

This page states that sulfur has the most allotropes of any element; the allotrope page states that carbon the most. Not sure on which is actually correct. Traditionally carbon is frequently mentioned as having the most, but I lack an authoritative source. (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)aepd

probably the most known allotropes before 1980 or some other recent date. Carbon is going to have more and more discovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Burning, Boilng Temp in Fahrenheit???[edit]

I may well have missed it, but does the editor say at what temp F sulfur burns, boils??? Because near the end of "The Book of Revelation" (21,8), John tells us that about eight types of people will experience a horrible SECOND death in a LAKE of fire in brimstone, which I interperet as a heat being so hot it actually liquifies the sulfur.User:JCHeverly 17:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the infobox (the big table at the top right of the article). Sulfur boils at 832.3 °F (444.6 °C). Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Pretty damned hot.User:JCHeverly 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is sulfur associated with volcanism?[edit]

The article did not answer my question: Why is sulfur associated with volcanism? It is a literally universal phenomenon, most notably on Jupiter's moon Io, so clearly there is something critical being left unmentioned in this article. I suspect it is a combination of the element's abundance, density, and melting points, but I'm not sure how that interplay works out. Badon (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Source: Prabhat advanced English-Hindi dictionary, Badri Nath Kapoor