Talk:Sulfuric acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to include CAS Number in the box?

Somebody put me right but I think Oleum is H2SO7? Rjstott Actually it is a solution of SO3 in aqueous H2SO4. --rmhermen See oleum - verified contents.--Forschung 10:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oleum - H₂S₂O₇ -x42bn6 Talk 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Question - does the Wikipedia use American or British spelling? If it uses American, then the element S should be sulfur, not sulphur (and similar for sulfuric, sulfurous, etc) -- Marj Tiefert

Simple answer: Yes.
We here at wikipedia have, Yanks, Brits, Australians, Kiwis and even people from some other English speaking countries. So we don't officially endorse any system of spelling -- so long as the word in question is spelt correctly in at least one widely used dialect of English. --maveric149

Thanks ;-)
I suppose it would be too much trouble to change all the page names anyway... -- Marj Tiefert

On the other hand, it seems that alumin(i)um has pretty much settled down to the UK spelling (as much as anything on a Wiki is settled), on the grounds that aluminium is the spelling recommended by IUPAC since 1990.

Also since 1990, IUPAC has recommended sulfur as the spelling of this element. The Chemical Abstracts agree, and since 1992, even the Royal Society of Chemistry has had sulfur as its official nomenclature recommendation (although not all RSC publications follow this recommendation). And as of this writing, the element itself, as well as most of its compounds that have their own page, use the 'f' spelling in the Wikipedia.

So, I'm highly inclined to make this page sulfuric acid and the redirect sulphuric. -- user:Shimmin

       I second this motion, the IUPAC names should always be used when naming 
       chemicals here.

       P.S. The only reason I changed everything to sulphur* was because
               1) I hadn't realized that the IUPAC standardized on one
               2) Before the change, the article was a horrible mish-mash of
                  sulphur and sulfur. Considering the article was titled  
                  "Sulphuric acid", I felt it best to use that.
               
                  Darrien 16:28, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Actually, I come from the UK, and I was always taught at school that it should be spelt with an F, even though the original "British" English version is with PH.

You American editors are going to hate me for this but with all due respect as a Chemist (im studing my A-Levels) and have found out that Sulphur is the internationally recognised wording therefore can one of you changed this title to be internationally recognised variant.

You are mistaken. See Wikipedia: Naming conventions (chemistry). Shimmin 15:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Shimmin is quite right. I got an A in my A-levels (and a Grade 1 S-level) in the UK in 1978, I now hold a Chemistry PhD, and I have worked in chemistry all of my life. IUPAC ruled on this a few years ago (see above). Even the Royal Society of Chemistry spells sulfur with an f now (see here for an example. On chemistry pages we try to follow IUPAC. With A-level chemistry you should be able to make some good contributions to the chemistry (not the spelling!), come & help us! Cheers, Walkerma 18:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Erk, saved changes in wrong window. Thanks for the revert, Tarquin. -- Roger, 16:34 UTC, 1 Sep 2003

lol. no problem! -- Tarquin 17:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This isn't very encyclopedic, but I thought it would be fun to mention somewhere in the vicinity of the article - a mnemonic, of sorts, for young chemists:

Johnny was a good boy, [or "...chemist"]

But Johnny is no more,

For what he thought was H₂O,

Was H₂SO₄!

:-D IMSoP 23:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Er ... did you read the article? Make sure you go to the bottom. - DavidWBrooks 22:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"In 1746 in Birmingham, John Roebuck began producing sulfuric acid ... the standard method of production for almost two centuries."

Yet there's a new process invented in 1831. 85 years is barely close to one century, nevermind two. Is that 1646?--Eric 6 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

The contact process was invented in 1831, but was not used on any great scale until the late 19th century, and didn't overtake the old route in terms of volume until the 1920s. Shimmin July 7, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

1 keep "Vitriol" as a separate entry
2 Sulfuric Acid Drain Cleaners
3 bicarbonate of soda
4 Comic rhyme (again)
5 Nationality of Jabir Ibn Hayyan
6 Need citations
7 Links, sulfur and fertilizer
8 pKa
9 Jabir ibn Hayyan
10 Dilution
11 References
12 IUPAC recommends "Sulphuric acid" or "Sulfuric acid"?
13 pH of sulfuric acid solution for different concentrations

[edit] keep "Vitriol" as a separate entry

As a writer, the phrase "To hurl Vitriol" is useful, and it is useful to be able to easily look up the origins of the word.

Vitriol seems to have a greater historical context. With a simple link from page to page one can easily see that both compounds are the same and leave historical context of vitriol intact.

I agree. I have removed the suggested merge. Physchim62 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm re-suggesting the merging of the two articles, to a point: the information about the history and chemical composition of sulfuric acid is already covered on the sulfuric acid page. There is the point about the phrase "to hurl vitriol", but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The vitriol page should remain, but should focus on information pertinent to the word itself, perhaps including a bit about the fake alchemy acronym, and its use in alchemy - but all the duplicated info should just be replaced with a link to sulfuric acid. Pjrich 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why any information about word history etc. should go in Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary. Dictionaries aren't just about defining things. --Dfeuer 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary's "vitriol" entry does have an etymology section, so that's already covered, but areas such as cultural history don't seem to be normally adressed in Wiktionary. Barring massive public outcry I'll remove the merge and just tidy the two articles up a bit as suggested so there's less overlap. Pjrich 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to talk to the high poobah Wiktionarians and get their input on the matter. Dfeuer 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get the high poobah to visit here. But I think what Pjrich said was accurate. We don't currently do word histories on Wiktionary. That doesn't rule out the possibility of doing them someday. Some support the concept in theory, but we do not have any place right now for them. It's not likely to happen very quickly, so hang onto the information for us, for now. --Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Wiktionary sysop. (Previous statement rewritten.)

[edit] Sulfuric Acid Drain Cleaners

Please maintain a neutral POV on this page related to the sulfuric acid drain cleaner question. Whether or not sulfuric acid drain cleaners should be banned for sale to the public is currently being debated on the federal level, and is discussed in the drain cleaner article.

[edit] bicarbonate of soda

We now have conflicting advice about what to do in case of acid burns - keep bicarbonate of soda handy, but don't use it! This needs to be cleared up - or (my preference) the whole advice portion of the article eliminated. Wikipedia isn't a safety manual. - DavidWBrooks 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not conflicting. Sodium bicarbonate is useful for acid spills, so long as they are not on the skin. Physchim62 11:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I rearranged the paragraph slightly to help other people from being as confused as me. - DavidWBrooks 12:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have done it myself, but I was in the middle of a long series of edits after a page move. Physchim62 13:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comic rhyme (again)

It seems that many people think that this encyclopedia would be incomplete without this rhyme. While I think it shouldn't be here at all, I think I could put up with it. However, do we need four versions of it (and more to be added in the future)? If it's that important in popular culture, we need a separate article entitled Comic rhymes about sulfuric acid. I propose to delete all but one from version this article, and include a comment that "many variations exist." Does anyone want to present a case against deletion of variants? Walkerma 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed variants in the past, as well; they keep returning. Still, I think it is good for the article, since a good chunk of the population knows nothing about the acid except this rhyme, which is one of the few, if only, bits of popular oral culture built around a chemical formula. Personally, I think the UK and US variants are sufficiently different to both be included (just one of each), but perhaps that just opens the door to multiple versions; I wouldn't balk if we cut it down to one. (But which side of the pond will be left out?) - DavidWBrooks 18:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with keeping one, given that it is obviously a popular culture issue to some editors. I say keep an American version, preferably one for which we have some info as to its first recorded (Pre-Wikipedia) use: I have never personally come accross such rhymes on the European side of "The Pond", but that doesn't mean that they don't exist! Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never been sure that the labelling of the variants we have as "American" and "U.K." was indicative of anything other than the nationality of the contributors that added them, as the variant I learned in my (U.S.) chemical education is

Little Johnny was a chemist

Little Johnny is no more

For what he thought was H₂O

Was really H₂SO₄

Shimmin 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality of Jabir Ibn Hayyan

158.39.34.35 recently changed the nationality/ethnicity of Jabir Ibn Hayyan in this article from Arab to Iranian. According to the article about him, Ibn Hayyan was born in Iran but moved to Iraq. That article places him in the category "Arab Chemists" but does not describe him anywhere as Iranian. I hope someone more familiar with Wikipedia conventions can determine the correct description. Furthermore, the main article on Ibn Hayyan is named Geber. Should this reference be changed to match? Dfeuer 20:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed this at the time, but the books I had didn't help. A web search also left things ambiguous. The probably with famous people is that everyone wants to claim them as one of their own! I have a book at home (now in the attic) on "The History of the Arab Peoples" (yes, chemists do read history) and I seem to recall that the Persians of that time were included as Arabs, certainly the Samanids were. According to Wikipedia the earlier Sassanid Empire was defeated by (you guessed) the Arabs, who brought Islam. So I think that Geber was BOTH Arab AND Iranian/Persian. Walkerma 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The nationality and where abouts can stay in the articles of the persons and not in the article of sulfuric acid. There are several french and german scientists mentioned on the page without giving them the atribut born in where ever everytime they are mentioned. The Islamic or Arabic is another thing. Islam is a religion and if this is found in a religious book its Ok, but if this was found in a scientific book the language in which is written is the atribute to be given. arabic persian sanscrit or what ever. Arabic was bevor but may be its written in persian tahn change it to persian or what ever, but islamic alchemist would be as wrong as christian chemist.--Stone 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The nationality of these individuals should stay, it's significant. --ManiF 11:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jabir may be the most troublesome can of worms in classical Arabic. One school of textual criticism would make him a sort of 9–10th century Nicolas Bourbaki. Shimmin 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick look in Britannica [1] or Columbia Encyclopedia [2] , and all major Encyclopedia's would tell you that he is an Arab. Jidan 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are conflicting sources about his ethnicity, but he's defiantly Iranian-born as per your own sources plus the evidence and discussions on Talk:Geber. Don't remove a factual statement. --ManiF 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am not aware of the nationality of Geber, but I strongly feel that mentioning his country of birth is more important than his religion. From a quick browse around, most scientists in their own pages have their coutries listed, and none I found had a religious connection made explicit in the first few lines. If you really can't agree on where he came from, I think nothing would be preferable than "islamic." -postglock 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need citations

"Is credited to" and "is sometimes credited" need to cite sources. Dfeuer 20:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links, sulfur and fertilizer

The article now has consistent spelling of sulfur and fertilizer. The article had both American and British spellings. Aluminium was already consistent with other instances of it, even though the rest of the article uses American spelling. I don't mind and I believe it is the preferred scientific spelling internationally.

I removed a lot of redundant links. There were multiple links of some words in the same section, and sometimes in the same paragraph. I left links that were used in other sections since it is a long article. -- Kjkolb 02:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. Sulfur is now the preferred spelling for British chemistry usage (e.g., the Royal Society of Chemistry uses it), because it is the IUPAC approved name. Aluminium is likewise the IUPAC name, and the American Chemical Society should be using it (as with caesium)! Walkerma 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pKa

Why are there two values for the pKa? -postglock 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sulfuric acid is a diprotic acid. The lower value is for losing the first H⁺ to form HSO₄⁻, the higher pKa (less acidic) value is for this ion (bisulfate) losing another H⁺ to form SO₄²⁻. Walkerma 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Walkerma. Do you think this is pretty obvious to most people (I suppose it is in retrospect); it shouldn't require clarification in the box? -postglock

There is mention of these equilibria under Sulfuric_acid#Reaction_with_water, but no mention of pKa there. I'm heading to bed now (3am local time!) but I'll try and improve the box tomorrow, and maybe look at others like phosphoric acid too. Thanks for the comment! Walkerma 07:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Walkerma, or anyone else, wondering if you had any thoughts on how to do this? I thought about "1st proton" and "2nd proton," but it looked pretty ugly. Any suggestions? or is it even necessary? -postglock 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabir ibn Hayyan

Lets agree on NO mentioning of ethnicity or nationality. ITS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this article. @ManiF, I know you like this ethnic-crap,your history proves that. But lets leave your ethnic-war hobby at Jabir main article,not here, shall we? jidan 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

His place of birth is relevant information, don't remove it. --ManiF 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We can mention both, his place of birth and ethnicity, so it will be: iranian-born arab alchemist ... . But mentioning one without the other will not work. And at that time Tous(his birthplace), was part of the arab empire not Iran. I would favour removing all that ethnic-crap, since its irrelevant to this article.jidan 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a history article, his place of birth would it, his ethnicity is disputed. --ManiF 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried this:His ethnic background is not clear; although most sources state he was an Arab (which he was by Jus sanguinis), some claim he was Persian (which he was by Jus soli). but his ethnic is disbuted as well so this also will not work. If anyboy is really interested if the arab empire was or was not where he lifed or if his ethnic status was or was not arab or persian, should read the main article! The only thing I wanted to state is that islamic is not a good solution. If I change the english biologist Charles Darwin to the christian biologist Charles Darwin (in fact he was a religiuos man!), the impression everybody would get that his religious status had a big influence on his research.--Stone 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran at that time didn't exist. It was Arab soil, and a province of the arab empire. And jabir's parents were aborignal arabs from the arabian peninsula. @Manif: This has nothing to do with Sulfuric acid, why dont u get it? If a user is interested in knowing more about jabir's life, he will check his main article. Your motive's are purely nationlastic, as can be seen from other articles you edited. jidan 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

@Stone: I know what u mean. But Islamic in this sense is not a relgious term, its a chronological term. All scientists that lived within the arab caliphate, were called just islamic scientist, although some of them were jews and christians. All those scientsist have in common that they wrote in arabic, and did thier work in the baghdad, the capital of the arab caliphate. jidan 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because the land was occupied by Arabs at that time, doesn't mean Persia or Iran didn't exist. That's like saying Poland didn't exist in 1940's because the Nazis had occupied it. Regardless, no one is mentioning ethnicity or nationality, these discussion have no place here, Jabir was born in Tus and place of birth is a relevant information, don't censor it. --ManiF 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Poland argument would bring me to the point making some people born in europe between 1939 and 1945 germans, would be a fun to try. The uprise you would generate would be nice to see. And best you can modify even the biography of living people. They will be get relly angry beeing german by Jus soli. But for know occupation terretory or part of the country or even better freedom fighters or terrorists is a discussion which never will stop, and has no solution.So lets have the place of birth or not, but the real war should be on the Geber main page and be solved there.--Stone 12:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Stone, this is what I said since the beginning. The war should be in Geber page. I still dont get what Sulfuric acid has to do with this. jidan 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jabir left Tous,Khorasan(at that time an arab province) in his childhood after his father got executed. He then moved to yemen, the home country of his parents[3].There he learned to read and write. He lived most of his life in Kufa(Iraq) and Baghdad(Iraq) and wrote all his works in Arabic. So, by culture,nationality and by blood, he is an Arab. Because its irrelevant in this article, any mention of his background will be removed. jidan 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is nothing certain about his culture, nationality and blood. Not much known is about his life expect that he was born in Tus which is a fact you are trying to censor, everything else about his life and background is disputed by contradictory sources. --ManiF 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dilution

How can you work out how hot a solution will become when diluting sulfuric acid? Eg. 98% -> 20%, how much energy will be given off?

Thanks very much

210.246.0.84 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Could we get just a little bit more references? The article is close to FA status, it just needs more inline citations and a consistent referencing system. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IUPAC recommends "Sulphuric acid" or "Sulfuric acid"?

Which does IUPAC recommend? --HappyCamper 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think sulfur in stead of sulphur, so sulfuric acid, and so for all compounds which have the word sulfur/sulphur in the name?

By the way, is it an idea to put all those spelling things into one document (e.g. IUPAC recommended spelling of substance names) or something similar, and making a link there on top of the page (like a {{for}} or {{see also}}, e.g. {{alternative substance naming}} with parameters sulphur and sulfur on the sulfur page, redirecting to a subheader on the naming page). It would make life easier on which policy the chemistry part of Wikipedia has adopted for pagenaming (if a dispute, make a link in the first line to that document). And in that way we can eradicate all spelling-sections. With a bit of careful thinking it could even be used for pages where systematic naming vs. trivial name is a problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's bring this up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. I think expanding this idea might be useful. --HappyCamper 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Chemistry --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Basilius Valentinus is "backronym". What does it signify?

Some equations regarding oxidation of iron by sulfuric acid are a bit on the dodgy side; e.g. Fe³⁺ being rendered as Fe+++ - should we fix these up? LudBob 09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pH of sulfuric acid solution for different concentrations

Dear authors, the article says: < ...Some common concentrations are:

10%, dilute sulfuric acid for laboratory use (pH 1) 33.5%, battery acid (used in lead-acid batteries) (pH 0.5) 62.18%, chamber or fertilizer acid (pH about 0.4) 77.67%, tower or Glover acid (pH about 0.25) 98%, concentrated (pH about 0.1) Since sulfuric acid is a strong acid, a 0.50 M solution of sulfuric acid has a pH close to zero ... > 0.5M solution gives 100*0.5 gram/L or about 5% w/w concentartion. How 0.5M can give pH~0 while 10% gives 10 times weaker pH=1? IMHO all pH values in the table are improper 72.56.180.181 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Coca

Sulfuric acid is not completely a strong acid. It is a strong acid for the loss of the first proton, but weak for the loss of the second proton (pK_a = 1.99). A 0.5 M solution has a calculated pH of about 0.3: however, at these concentrations (and anything more concentrated), you really need to take account of activity coefficients. That having been said, the vaules in the article look pretty suspect, to say the least. Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/l/Talk%7ESulfuric_acid_0e31.html"