Talk:Sulfur dioxide

message: The link to IARC monographs v54, containing the article "Sulfur Dioxide and some Sulfites, Bisulfites and Metabisulfites" was broken (apparently by a reorganization of the IARC website).
The old link went to: http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol54/02-sulfur-dioxide.htm 
I found the monograph pdf at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/volume54.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.233.111 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link

message: Can we get a better picture?? -Hamdev Guru 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
thread_title:  sulfur 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emissions section misinforms 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll try and fix this picture. Walkerma 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: You could always start with our short article on hypervalent molecules... Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The appendix  section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  sulphur dioxide as a preservative 

message: 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
:Vsmith 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment from article re: structural image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Error?

message: ORLY? Surely this is a mockery. Of course a sulfur oxide smells like sulfur oxidising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.55.229 (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SO2 is often described as the "smell of burning sulfur" 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I'm currently looking for the world's largest supplier of Sulfur Dioxide (as a preservative or general) but I have had no luck at all finding one. This could be because many of the companies produce their own SO2, but there still has to be some supplier. I'm stating this because there are no major suppliers listed here... Anyone care to help? --72.137.83.62 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who sell it will be the major industrial gas suppliers – Linde Group, Air Liquide, Praxair and Air Products. They probably don't make it themselves (although they may well purify it, especially for food use) but but it in from the manufacturers of sulfuric acid, for which read virtually any major chemical company. Physchim62 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Producer? 

message: Depending on the contribution of each resonant structure, the bond order should lie somewhere between 1 and 2. (If we assume equal contribution, then it's 1.67) How can SO2 have a bond order of at least 2? 202.40.137.197 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bond order of at least 2? 

message: There appears to be some misunderstanding or misinformation regarding the use of sulfur dioxide in commercial wine production.
Here's the quote:
"SO2 is also a very important element in winery sanitation. Wineries and equipment must be kept clean, and because bleach cannot be used in a winery, a mixture of SO2, water, and citric acid is commonly used to clean and sanitize equipment. Compounds of ozone (O3) are now used extensively as cleaning products in wineries due to their efficiency, and because these compounds do not affect the wine or equipment."
I was a wine-maker for a number of years, and the above quote is simply incorrect or is a misunderstanding of the source material (none is cited). 
The usual method for cleaning and sanitizing stainless steel tanks, pumps, hoses, fittings, etc., starts with a pump-circulated cleanser that consists mostly of sodium hydroxide (lye). A water rinse is followed by recirculated citric acid to neutralize any residue of the initial cleanser, which is a strong base. After another rinse, a solution of 100 ppm of chlorine is briefly recirculated, drained, and then allowed to air dry. 
Chlorine bleach is by far the primary sanitizer used in wineries. SO2 is never used on stainless fermenters because wine yeast is so easily killed by it.
Part of the description I'm disputing, seems to be referring to a portion of the procedure used to clean and prepare wine barrels for a period of empty storage. This is the only time SO2 is used as a sanitizer in a fermenting vessel--usually in gaseous form--this works because the next time juice is added to barrel ferment, any free sulfur will be long gone.
Another reason SO2 is not used near live, active yeast cultures, is wine-makers do not want their yeast strains to begin to develop resistance to it's effects. This is very similar to the resistant strains of disease-causing bacteria due to the over-use of human antibiotics.--MigcaX (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sulfur dioxide. What is it? An acid or a base. 120.60.10.39 (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the right answer is that sulfurous acid is in equilibrium with water and sulfur dioxide. But sulfur dioxide in a dry environment is a reducing agent. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 3.3 Wine 

message: Apparently there is some evidence that SO2 is the main driver for global warming. The full details still need to be worked out. See one of the first papers: 
: --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Global Warming

message: Hello, I made a change to the order of the listing of the amounts of SO2 under the section "As an air pollutant". It was, before the change, listed as thus:
    * 1999 18,867
    * 1998 19,491
    * 1997 19,363
    * 1996 18,859
    * 1990 23,678
    * 1980 25,905
    * 1970 31,161
I changed it to this:
    * 1970 31,161
    * 1980 25,905
    * 1990 23,678
    * 1996 18,859
    * 1997 19,363
    * 1998 19,491
    * 1999 18,867
So, I reversed the order so the oldest date would read first and progress from there, instead of the other way around. I did this because, as far as I can tell, historical listing of dates starts at the oldest and progresses to the newest in English, as we read left to right, top to bottom. As the old way, it can be confusing as one might think over time the amounts were actually increasing over time, instead of decreasing if not observed carefully. I myself read it first as it was increasing over time, but after looking it over again I saw it was in fact decreasing, he cause of this human error being the way it was listed. I actually looked at the source of the listing itself http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/sulfur.html to make sure that perhaps it was not just an editor's error in writing the dates when it implied that it was decreasing over time, but saw it was the truth! 
Sorry for all this talking over this little change, if you find it was not a good decision, please tell me here in the discussion and we can talk about it.
Thank you for your time!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of amount of SO2 by the U.S. change

message: The previous information contrasting the bonds in sulfur dioxide with ozone, in that the S–O bond in sulfur dioxide being shorter than that of sulfur monoxide, but O–O bond in ozone longer than oxygen, is incorrect as the information was comparing sulfur dioxide with the diradical sulfur monoxide, yet compared ozone with singlet oxygen rather than (diradical) triplet oxygen as it should (which of course ozone has a shorter bond length comparatively). Hence, both sulfur dioxide and ozone actually have equivalent bonding and I have changed the information to instead reflect 3c-4e bonding as normally used to explain "hypervalent" molecules.--Officer781 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the reference to Greenwood and Earnshaw. The new information seems correct but it requires a reference, G&E reference was relevent to the information prior to change.Axiosaurus (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have reread greenwoods account. The bond lengths according to NNG of O2, O3, SO and SO2 are O2 ground state 120.7 pm, singlets 121.55 pm, 122.77 pm (pp606), O3 127.8 pm, SO, 148.1 pm, SO2 143.1pm. So isn't Greenwood correct? The bond in SO is longer than that in SO2, whereas the bond in O2 is shorter (interestingly both for singlets and triplet forms) than that in O3. The  O-O bond in O3 is NOT shorter than that of O2 as I think is being suggested above by Officer781, unless these numbers are incorrect or I am misinterpreting them or what officer781 is saying.   Axiosaurus (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. The O-O bond in O3 is indeed longer due to the Lewis structure analysis of O2 having a bond order of 2 in each bond and O3 having a bond order of 1.5 instead. The SO bond is longer due to it being similar to a single bond (for some reason. See the sulfur monoxide page. It says that the bond length is similar to lower sulfur oxides having single bonds). I'll find the reference for the unreferenced information.--Officer781 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you're right on the triplet/singlet issue. I apologize for that mistake.--Officer781 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrected bonding section 

message: These belong in the "Structure and bonding" section, but they don't seem to turn out right.
Perhaps someone can fix them. 
--Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misbehaving images 

message: A recent edit (12/2/2014) which I undid as the charges were incorrect, highlights an issue. The verbal description reads like "classic" VB resonance (i.e. Lewis dots and octets) but lacks a picture to show the two canonicals, e.g O=S+–O-  <-> -O–-+S=O which is unhelpful in my view. Also the reference is to a modern VB paper which sort of agrees with this description as it "confirms" the non-involvement of d orbitals. Any one out there with the necessary skills to put up a picture of Lewis octet resonance ?  A full wikipedia treatment would also require some discussion of alternative views of the bonding.  Axiosaurus (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people get agitated over this: but at least in the US, my feeling is that we virtually only describe molecules like SO2 in the MO context, at least at a college level. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone teaching that at a US university I have to disagree. We first discuss the Lewis/resonance picture, then clarify its inadequate nature, then describe molecules in terms of MO's. I personally skip the extended octet description, mostly because I think it is more fruitful for a gen chem student to spend some more time on MO's, then on trying to extend the Lewis story that I have just argued is not very adequate. CH 101 students tend to find MO's pretty challenging. 
Jcwf (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: VB?

message: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/sulfurdi.html
::What are the potential health effects of sulfur dioxide?
Main Routes of Exposure: Inhalation.
    Inhalation: VERY TOXIC, can cause death. Can cause severe irritation of the nose and throat. At high concentrations: can cause life-threatening accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema). Symptoms may include coughing, shortness of breath, difficult breathing and tightness in the chest. A single exposure to a high concentration can cause a long-lasting condition like asthma. If this occurs, many things like other chemicals or cold temperatures can easily irritate the airways. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, tightness in the chest and wheezing. {Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS)}.
    Skin Contact: CORROSIVE. The gas irritates or burns the skin. Permanent scarring can result. Direct contact with the liquefied gas can chill or freeze the skin (frostbite). Symptoms of mild frostbite include numbness, prickling and itching. Symptoms of more severe frostbite include a burning sensation and stiffness. The skin may become waxy white or yellow. Blistering, tissue death and infection may develop in severe cases.
    Eye Contact: CORROSIVE. The gas irritates or burns the eyes. Permanent damage including blindness can result. Direct contact with the liquefied gas can freeze the eye. Permanent eye damage or blindness can result.
    Ingestion: Not a relevant route of exposure (gas).
    Effects of Long-Term (Chronic) Exposure: May harm the respiratory system. Can irritate and inflame the airways.
    Carcinogenicity: Not known to cause cancer.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Group 3 - Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
    American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): A4 - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen.
    Teratogenicity / Embryotoxicity: Not known to harm the unborn child.
    Reproductive Toxicity: Not known to be a reproductive hazard.
    Mutagenicity: Suspect mutagen. May cause genetic damage based on animal information.  
Ocdcntx (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not in the advice and warning business.  And Wikipedia-chemistry is mainly focused on, well, chemistry.  As you have discovered, lots of other sites provide ample and excellent information on chemical hazards, real or exagerated (we smell SO2 everytime we light a match).--Smokefoot (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian OHS fact sheet warns very toxic, with death or permanent severe disability possible from high or chronic exposure. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sulfur dioxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928111625/http://www.practicalwinery.com/janfeb09/page1.htm to http://www.practicalwinery.com/janfeb09/page1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426082343/http://benthamscience.com/mrmc/contabs/mrmc10-11.html to http://benthamscience.com/mrmc/contabs/mrmc10-11.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325155828/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/volume54.pdf to http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/volume54.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sulfur dioxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723065412/http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines/Documents/fdb%20Sulfites.pdf to http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines/Documents/fdb%20Sulfites.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: At the top of the sulfur dioxide properties table, there are images of the SO2 molecule shown as O=S=O, with two double bonds. But suddenly, in the "Structure and bonding" section, as it says - by the terms of a "valence bond theory approach considering just s and p orbitals" - there are images of the SO2 molecule shown as −O−S+=O ←→ O=S+−O−, suggesting that this is an average structure of SO2, and it says that the sulfur–oxygen bond has a bond order of 1.5. That contradicts to the image of the SO2 molecule shown as O=S=O, where the bond order is obviously 2. Now someone could yell that O=S=O and −O−S+=O are one of the many possible structures of SO2 molecule, but why to confuse readers by showing structures like O=S=O, without explaining from what theory the O=S=O structure is derived, and is the O=S=O structure an average in that other theory, or is it just one of the many possible non-average structures in the "valence bond theory approach considering just s and p orbitals"? Bernardirfan (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah the joy of being a critic of a complicated situation!  --Smokefoot (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing/contradictory information about the structure 

message: This article gets 1000+ views per day, so it is a high priority that the lead be written properly. Specifically, the recently added statement "Sulfur dioxide has pungent smell like nitric acid" needs a citation and grammatical improvement. I'm asking someone else to do it because I already removed the statement too many times (momentarily forgot about the 3-revert rule .. my apologies). MaxwellMolecule (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic statement in introduction