Talk:Sulfur dioxide

Chemicals: Core Start‑class 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.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

STRUCTURE

It has been brought to my attention that the structure put here is entirely WRONG, there is resonance in the sulfur dioxide molecule between O-S=O, and O=S-O, if anything one of these structures should be posted, O=S=O is wrong entirely. -Annoyed Chem Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.153.177 (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Dear annoyed - most chemical structures are wrong in some sense, but not entirely and certainly with no bad intentions. Chemists specify "structures' that are highly simplified relative to the quantum reality that is undescribable with letters and lines. We also seek conciseness and, by agreement, draw one of many resonance structures. --Smokefoot 22:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Career and PhD chemists with years of experience may not need Wikipedia to specify different forms of SO2, but neophytes who are our most likely readers are looking for basic and comprehensive details. Current teaching states that there are 18 valence electrons in SO2. The structure O=S=O requires only 16 electrons. O-S=O and O=S-O require 18, and the uncertainty of the location of the double bond seems to me to be entirely in keeping with the quantum mechanics involved. IMHO O=S=O should not be displayed as the sole structure, and if it is displayed at all, there should be an explanation that the rest of the world can understand. O-S=O and/or O=S-O should be displayed as well, with footnotes as appropriate. ESROB —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Can we get a better picture?? -Hamdev Guru 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphur

Sulphur is spelt with a ph, not an f, as it comes from English, not American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.197.207.136 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See the appropriate style guidelines. E.g. wp:chem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that. SulFur is just promoting laziness.

AND BY THE WAY... (to you sulFur fellas) AluminIUm sounds the same way it's spelt, funnily enough!

al-loo-min-ee-um

NOT

al-loo-min-um

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.155.153 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-It is not about laziness, 'sulfur' is recognised as international name for element with atomic number 16 of now days Kboom 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sulfur

is sulfur dioxide an organic vapor?

It is a vapor, but not an organic one as it is not carbon-based. Walkerma 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reccmommended Protective equipment which should be used in the industry? please explain

sulfur forms the compound S8.

Emissions section misinforms

The Emissions section as written in fall, 2007, is misleading as to the extent and causes of U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions reductions and frankly sounds like it was written by an energy industry apologist. From 1970 through 2005, U.S. EPA 5-year and 10-year data points show total annual emissions falling from 31.16 to 14.63 million tons in nearly a straight line, for a reduction of more than half. The great majority of this long-term trend has been achieved by fuel substitution, chiefly low-sulfur coal and diesel, not by flue gas scrubbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.44.181 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC) :Wikipedia exists to be edited by people like you. So you are welcome to fix the problem.--Smokefoot 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structural picture

It would be nice if the molecular diagram was bent to show the actual geometry of the bonds. I was temporarily confused, thinking the current picture implies it was linear. -postglock 12:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the bond between 1 of the oxygens and the sulfur is a coordinate covalent bond which would make it a bend single bond between 1 of the oxygens and the sulfur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunter839 (talk • contribs) .

I'll try and fix this picture. Walkerma 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The image at the top right of the page showing the connections between the sulfur and the 2 oxygen is inccorect. There is only one double bond but the picture shows two. If there was 2 double bonds the sulfur would have 10 electrons in its outer layer. The picture should only have one double bond with a picture looking similar to this O=S-O. unsigned by User:Lambgina

Here is the key issue to ponder and read about: Why are you so certain that "there is only one double bond?" and that something is wrong about "10 electrons"? How do you propose to describe the bonding in DMSO, sulfuric acid, [[SF₆]]?--Smokefoot 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could always start with our short article on hypervalent molecules... Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you now I understand and my goals in life have been completed. I can now die satisfied with my vegemite sandwich.

The appendix section

Why I see the Appendix: temperature dependence of aqueous solubility looks so confused and I could hardly identify the information due to its mixed-up in format style. Can anyon (Talk) 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say on the picture (3D digram), sulfur dioxide has a bent structure with the sulfur atom having two free electrons (a lone pair).22 May 2007— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.198.179 (talk • contribs)

This should not go in the picture itself. However, if you want to add to the section Sulfur_dioxide#Structure_and_bonding that would be good. Walkerma 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sulphur dioxide as a preservative

I quite often find this in various food products and am aware of what it's used for but is it safe to ingest?203.221.26.195 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article re: structural image

Removed the following from article top:

the picture for this article is incorrect. SO2 has a resonance structure and isn't permanently bonded. It looks more like NO2-. Sorry I posted this here, I don't know how to change the picture on the right column. Source: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/chemistry/Inorganicchemistry/Informationbonding/bondingindex/Resonance/Resonance.htm

Added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.239.252 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The structure looks fine to me - it shows one of the three valid resonance forms for the compound, the other two being the zwitterionic ones given in the cited ref. Unlike N in NO₂⁻, S can expand its octet and have two double bonds while being neutral. Walkerma 06:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fungicide

My "Subsole" brand grapes say that they have been "treated with sulfur dioxide for fungicide use." Does anyone have any information on this, to add to the "uses" section? I want to know if it's safe to eat.

becky

MSDS

Why is there no MSDS on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk • contribs) 16 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Error?

Different inorganic chemistry books say different things. The one I was looking at first said that sulfur dioxide resonates between O-S=O and O=S-O only. Another one says that only O=S=O is the correct representation. Ben: if you could post the two resonance structures in addition to the structure currently posted and add an explanation, that would be most accurate and informative to readers of the article.

Done.

Ben (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also hypervalent molecule: the two descriptions are actually equivalent, but some chemists prefer one and some chemists the other. Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO2 is often described as the "smell of burning sulfur"

ORLY? Surely this is a mockery. Of course a sulfur oxide smells like sulfur oxidising.