Talk:Sulfate

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possibly add a disambiguation page for this, as currently it only directs to the National Identification Service.

The ‘Main effects on climate’ section has had a citation missing tag for a while. I have been unable to find links to Pincus & Baker 1994 or Albrecht 1989. The information came from a diagram in Haywood et al 2001 and reproduced on page 5 of [ http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/OpenDay2006/DA_OpenDay2006.pdf]

Maybe someone with access to Haywood et al could do a better job of extracting the information.

Is a link to that pdf worth putting in the article? There is also a video [ http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/OpenDay2006/duncan_a.wmv] but that is 19MB. —The preceding

([user:strangersavy69] it doesn't matter how you spell it as long as your spelling is consistant, the traditional British and associated british english spelling is Sulphate as the element is Sulphur, but in US english the spelling of the element is Sulfur hence why US english speakers spell sulphate, sulfate. there should be no real confusion unless you call it interchangeably at that shows the lecturer that you can't differentiate between American english or British english use what spelling you are taught by your superiors and not wiki.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.146.160 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Jaxx_77 (The closer to the blinding light you come, the darker the shadows that are bourne behind you...In the shadows I will lurk, for I will never be just a memory and in this world of darkness and light, I will be the darkness and you can be the light) 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, because we follow IUPAC. Thanks for your consideration. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What books are you reading? The spell checker even now on my browser says that sulphur is incorrect. LoyalSoldier 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Sulfur#Spelling --Spoon! 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jaxx_77: In Britain, the correct spelling is sulphate. In the U.S, the correct spelling is sulfate. As this is en.wikipedia.org, I believe that it should have the spelling of the english language

I vote for sulphate. This wikipedia version is in the English language. The original, non-simplified English language. And that is what is spoken and written in Britain. 155.207.86.164 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses sulfate which is preferred by the international community including

IUPAC and even the Royal Society of Chemistry. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

MS Word is by no means a relevant authority on anything. Regardless, you should be aware that it ships with different dictionaries for different regions; one obviously would not to bother Brits for misspelling color as colour afterall. And yes indeed, many people do write sulfur. This is the form used in several textbooks and references I have, including the 67th and 87th editions of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The CRC is an authoritative source in chemistry. --Belg4mit 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Sulfate because it's IUPAC recommended and that means it is the official Spelling.You have to Obey the IUPAC.If I was an Admin i would have closed this discussion as soon as it started. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple spelling for simple people I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.249.196 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the article still needs references. e.g barium sulfate gravimetric analysis and the Pt complex (presumably square planar). So if anyone knows them please add.Axiosaurus 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can sufates be formed from sulfites by electrolysis? Would the sulfite ion give it's electrons up to the anode, instead of one of the oxygen atoms? Jokem (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an illustration of a Lewis Dot Structure should be added for this and other substances. (Moadeeb (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I dont think it is true that two of the oxygen atoms in S04 are double bonded. I think they are all single bonded with formal charges of -1 leaving the suphur with a formal charge of +2.

you are wrong the sulfur is an exception along with many other gases from period 3 down. these gases form the same number of valence e-s as bonds. the d orbitals is where the octet rule is getting thrown out. Period has has no 3d orbitals but because it is so close in energy they can form bonds in those 3d orbitals. (Posted by anon 68.61.205.189)

Otherwise the sulphur ends up with a broken octet? six bonds to an atom? I know sulphur can do this but i don't believe this is one of the cases, SF6 is where sulphur bonds with flourine in a double cross in three dimension (octahedral molecular geometry)

Plus having two oxygens with double bonds would create a situation for resonance, this is not mentioned about the ion.

What gives?

The article (as it was drafted) is the one that was wrong. The sulfate ion is perfectly tetrahedral in both solution and the solid state, there is no distinction between the oxygens. It is hence hypervalent: I shall leave discussion of the description of hypervalent bonding to that article, but the situation is the same as in sulfur hexafluoride. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a widely held view, it is not necessarily correct. High-level ab initio quantum computations indicate that the charge distribution, based on the computed electron density, is much better represented by the Lewis Structure that represents each S-O bond as a single bond (with each oxygen containing 3 lone pairs; S w/ 2+ charge, and each O with 1- charge). Intuitively, this even makes sense because of the higher electronegativity of oxygen. It has the further benefit of not violating the octet rule. Now, some will point out that, because sulfur is in the 3rd row of elements, it can have an "expanded octet," due to the availability of energetically nearby d orbitals. Again, quantum mechanical calculations indicate that these d orbitals are not accessible in the sulfate ion. Furthermore, the tetrahedral symmetry of sulfate is not allowed in hybrid orbitals containing d orbital mixing. Overall, the fully symmetric Lewis Structure is a better one -- but old habits die hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitwixt (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information would go nicely into the article, as soon as a reference is found.

Ben (talk)

Discussion continued

This is correct. Using valence shell expansion when it is not necessary is incorrect. Generally d orbitals do not get involved in bonding the way that we describe it in first year classes. For instance, if this is sp3 hybridization, there are no p orbitals to be used for the two pi bonds. The explanation is often that the 3d orbitals are making the pi bonds to explain the expanded octet structure. The reality is the linear combination of a 3d and 2p orbital is terrible, and contributes at most 2% of the actual bond strength. I'll have to come back later to put the myriad of citations up around this. But it's time to start drawing sulfate properly... all single bonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.34.169 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 January 2011

Computational analysis suggest for sulfuric and sulfurous acid, four single bonds and S=2⁺ / S=1⁺ resp., for the reason mentioned by 168.156.34.169.

See: Thorsten Stefan and Rudolf Janoschek: How relevant are S=O and P=O Double Bonds for the Description of the Acid Molecules H2SO3, H2SO4, and H3PO4, respectively? in: J. Mol. Model., 2000, 6, S. 282–288.

doi:10.1007/PL00010730.--Wickey-nl (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

S=O double bonds are still by far the most common representation in lectures, textbooks, and journal articles because they're quicker to draw and less cluttered. I think we should definitely make the modern computational chemists' view of the bonding in SO₄ ²⁻ more visible in the article, but we should not start replacing all S=O bonds in other articles (e.g. sodium sulfate, organosulfate, dimethyl sulfate, sulfone) with S⁺—O⁻.

Oh I disagree. Simply because it is commonly done one way, does not mean we should continue doing it incorrectly. Wikipedia represents the generally agreed upon view of a subject. The question is, what does the data and research support? Hence why it might be worth gathering some data.

I also disagree that the reason that it is drawn this way in lectures is for speed or ease. It is drawn this way to reduce formal charges - otherwise there is no viable reason to break the octet rule haphazardly... especially when the hybridization and linear combination effects become nebulous (at best). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.68.248 (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, So I just looked at this article again - and someone did a fantastic job of summarizing the history of this molecule. It is exactly how I would have written it myself - with the Lewis, Pauling, and current model description. It needs some grammatical fixes though still, but the addition is written reasonably neutral. It also leaves the scientific door open to both interpretations based on additional references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.68.248 (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

correct spelling is Sulphate. Why wikipedia is not using standard English spelling instead of a dialectal spelling. I thought wikipedia is neutral but there's American monopoly on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.249 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:SULF. Vsmith (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The "correct" spelling in some locations may indeed be Sulphate, but the IUPAC name is sulfate. So let's go with what they deemed as "correct." Partly for this very reason and discussion. The current header goes into this just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.34.191 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sulphate is perhaps the most prescribed form of oral iron supplement. Could sulphate for example have good or bad effect in intestinal bacteria? Of course i.v. iron would avoid such a problem.

ee1518 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed on here: computational quantum analysis shows that hypervalency is not used for most of these "reduce the formal charge structures." Something we teach in ochem anyway (octet before formal charges). As of 2019 xray diffraction data has verified the computational predictions: There ARE NO DOUBLE BONDS in sulfate or phosphate or any similar such structures.

Wikipedia should lead the charge and completely delete the old hypervalent images. Even if it will bother some of the dinosaurs out there.

https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/chem.201806247

Recent x-ray data shows unambiguously no pi bonds in sulfate. This corroborates some of the above computational research. Single bonds only folks! 73.109.135.112 (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]