Talk:Calcium sulfate

message: From gypsum
A growing source of gypsum is from Flue gas desulfurization which scrubs the sulfur emissions from fossil fuel burning power stations. This is done by using finely ground limestone which reacts with the sulfur dioxide to produce high purity gypsum as a by-product.
This is now the main source for calcium sulfate. Schould this be mentioned here? Stone 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

message: This density (~22g/cm^3), about that of Ir, seems to me to be in error.  Drywall doesn't strike me as that heavy.  Should this be verified? --Oreo Priest 03:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This value is correct (checked the Merck index).  I should note though, that this is for the anhydrous form.  The hydrated form which is in drywall has a density of 2.32g/cc.  In addition, I think this would be the density of one solid crystal not of light powder which has a lot of free space between particles.  Finally if you compare the value to magnesium sulfate (d 2.66), it seems to make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.66.171 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had been vandalized (see Special:Contributions/203.211.91.231), and the arror was discovered and reverted about a month after it was introduced into the article. The correct value is 2.96, not 22.96. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density error? 

message: The chaotic nature of the chembox data is because the article refers to multiple minerals.  Suggest change this to a short disambiguation page, pointing to separate articles for each hydration state.  This is justified because the different hydrates are all high-volume minerals with very different applications, etc.
LinguisticDemographer 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will create sevaral stub articles with less use. Better would be to write a chapter about every of the compounds in this article.--Stone 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to break up this article

message: Re-wrote section to refer to calcium sulfate rather than "gypsum", in chemist's language.  Remove unsubstantiated (since 25 Jan 2007) and POV content. . . . LinguisticDemographer 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write production

message: I've added a sentence on Drierite, as Drierite redirects to this article, but had no mention anywhere in the article. I'm of the belief that when a term is redirected, it should be mentioned somewhere in the target article. Otherwise, someone looking up info on blue/pink Drierite who reaches this article and sees CaSO4 is a white compound will be confused. I also took this opportunity to integrate the orphan sentence about the compound's color into the first paragraph. Kel - Ex-web.god 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drierite mention added. 

message: How to differentiate between calcium sulfate and calcium hydroxide? They both have low solubility in water.--Tohyf (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hydroxide is a fairly strong base despite its low solubility. You could identify it using pH paper, for example. --Itub 10:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualitative analysis 

message: This article says that anhydrite will not react with water even over geological timescales, while the anhydrite article says it will react readily. Which one is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.145.85 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory articles 

message: Seeing that this CaSO4/CaSO3 is a waste product of many a industrial process , can some one add on comment regarding waste disposal as the pH is >12 it is classified as corrosive and need to be dumped at a special waste disposal site??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.176 (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You try only to produce CaSO4 xH2O and then the stuff is normaly sold as Drywall or gypsum or plaster. --Stone (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental impact 

message: Calcarea sulphurica is used as a homeophathic to treat acne. The claim that it will dry up pustules from the inside out therefore clearing up the acne. I want to know how is this possible. What is the chemical reaction that allows this homeopathic to inhibit or dry up puss filled pimples,ect. Does anyone know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.225.1 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: homeopathic medicine is, by definition, pseudo-scientific. Asking about the mechanism of action of a homeopathic is logically asking the following question:"If a person is treated with [X] in an amount of 0, what will it do?" where [X] can be any identifiable material.174.130.70.61 (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  calcarea sulphurica is used as a homeopathic  

message: For calcium sulphate hemihydrate, CaSO4*0,5H2O in this article is indicated Ksp = 3,1*10^-7, but in my Handbook of Chem. and Physic, 84th edition, 2003-2004, this Ksp is for a sulphite, namely for calcium sulphite hemihydrate, CaSO3.0,5 H2O.
There is no value Ksp for CaCO4*0,5 H2O in this handbook. I made the same mistake myself and thought it was for the sulphate. I have not corrected it in the article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.193.106.214 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I think. I checked the CRC handbook and it appears you are 100% right. Best regards, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Solubility product constant, Ksp

message: The article currently contains the following remark:
:Note that the solubility of the calcium sulphate in the figure results about 10 times higher than that which is calculated with the solubility product of 0.0000493 given in same page. The value of Ksp is given also in http://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/ions_solubility/ksp_chart.php Note also that different values in the same order of magnitude but smaller are given in http://bilbo.chm.uri.edu/CHM112/tables/KspTable.htm http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/data-ksp.htm http://faculty.icc.edu/bcook/chem132NT/solubility.pdf http://www.thelabrat.com/protocols/solubilityproductconstant.shtml 
In my opinion, this is misleading and should be removed. The calculation of solubility from solubility product for calcium sulfate needs to consider activity coefficients. The author of this remark seems to have forgotten about it.  E.g., see here, p.1379.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility from solubility product 

message: I stripped these out of the text, someone may be able to put them to some use, but they weren't particularly useful for what was being said in the article.
http://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/ions_solubility/ksp_chart.php 
http://bilbo.chm.uri.edu/CHM112/tables/KspTable.htm
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/data-ksp.htm
http://faculty.icc.edu/bcook/chem132NT/solubility.pdf
http://www.thelabrat.com/protocols/solubilityproductconstant.shtml
They all are sort of short of any references anyway.JSR (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Stripped out K<sub>sp</sub> References

message: The first sentence of the lead (17.6.2020) is:"Calcium sulfate (or calcium sulphate) is the inorganic compound with the formula CaSO4 and related hydrates." I ask that this be changed to "The term 'calcium sulfate' (also spelled calcium sulphate) refers to the inorganic compound with the ionic formula CaSO4 or to either of its related hydrates CaSO4.1/2H2O or CaSO4.2H2O." As it stands now, it isn't clear if the statement is implying that the term refers to a mixture of hydrated and anhydrous CaSO4, or what. It may also be worthwhile to note that the IUPAC name of CaSO4 is calcium sulfate and does not include (in that name) hydrates and either disallows or depreciates the English "sulphate" spelling.(IUPAC has a stance on "sulphate", I just don't recall exactly what it is.) For some reason, the 'official' (IUPAC) spelling preference is ignored on the England-based Wikipedia...even though it is certainly noteworthy. I guess I might as well also note that it is an error to claim that a name refers to 3 (or more) different chemical compounds and then proceed to list physical properties of only one of them. (Should I also note that the hemihydrate actually is of indefinite composition with n varying from 0.5 to 0.8?) Only the anhydrous form, for instance, is orthorhombic, the hydrates seem to both be monoclinic. It is unlikely that ANY of the physical properties are the same for all 3 materials.174.130.70.61 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading or confusing information. 

message: In the molecular model diagram it would be helpful if there was a key (indicating the colour code for the relevant species) Squid57squid (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular model diagram