Thesulfate orsulphate ion is apolyatomic anion with theempirical formulaSO42−. Salts, acid derivatives, andperoxides of sulfate are widely used in industry. Sulfates occur widely in everyday life. Sulfates aresalts ofsulfuric acid and many are prepared from that acid.
The sulfate anion consists of a centralsulfur atom surrounded by four equivalentoxygen atoms in atetrahedral arrangement. The symmetry of the isolated anion is the same as that of methane. The sulfur atom is in the +6oxidation state while the four oxygen atoms are each in the −2 state. The sulfate ion carries an overallcharge of −2 and it is theconjugate base of thebisulfate (or hydrogensulfate) ion,HSO4−, which is in turn the conjugate base ofH2SO4,sulfuric acid. Organicsulfate esters, such asdimethyl sulfate, are covalent compounds andesters of sulfuric acid. Thetetrahedral molecular geometry of the sulfate ion is as predicted byVSEPR theory.
Two models of the sulfate ion. 1 withpolar covalent bonds only;2 with anionic bondSix resonances
The first description of the bonding in modern terms was byGilbert Lewis in his groundbreaking paper of 1916, where he described the bonding in terms of electron octets around each atom. There are two double bonds, and there is aformal charge of 2 on the sulfur atom and -1 on each oxygen atom.[1][a]
Later,Linus Pauling usedvalence bond theory to propose that the most significantresonance canonicals had twopi bonds involving d orbitals. His reasoning was that the charge on sulfur was thus reduced, in accordance with hisprinciple of electroneutrality.[2] The S−O bond length of 149 pm is shorter than the bond lengths insulfuric acid of 157 pm for S−OH. The double bonding was taken by Pauling to account for the shortness of the S−O bond.
Pauling's use of d orbitals provoked a debate on the relative importance ofpi bonding and bond polarity (electrostatic attraction) in causing the shortening of the S−O bond. The outcome was a broad consensus that d orbitals play a role, but are not as significant as Pauling had believed.[3][4]
A widely accepted description involving pπ – dπ bonding was initially proposed byDurward William John Cruickshank. In this model, fully occupied p orbitals on oxygen overlap with empty sulfur d orbitals (principally the dz2 and dx2–y2).[5] However, in this description, despite there being some π character to the S−O bonds, the bond has significant ionic character. For sulfuric acid, computational analysis (withnatural bond orbitals) confirms a clear positive charge on sulfur (theoretically +2.45) and a low 3d occupancy. Therefore, the representation with four single bonds is the optimal Lewis structure rather than the one with two double bonds (thus the Lewis model, not the Pauling model).[6]
In this model, the structure obeys theoctet rule and the charge distribution is in agreement with theelectronegativity of the atoms. The discrepancy between the S−O bond length in the sulfate ion and the S−OH bond length in sulfuric acid is explained by donation of p-orbital electrons from the terminal S=O bonds in sulfuric acid into the antibonding S−OH orbitals, weakening them resulting in the longer bond length of the latter.
However, Pauling's representation for sulfate and other main group compounds with oxygen is still a common way of representing the bonding in many textbooks.[5][7] The apparent contradiction can be clarified if one realizes that thecovalent double bonds in the Lewis structure actually represent bonds that are strongly polarized by more than 90% towards the oxygen atom. On the other hand, in the structure with adipolar bond, the charge is localized as alone pair on the oxygen.[6]
Typicallymetal sulfates are prepared by treating metal oxides, metal carbonates, or the metal itself withsulfuric acid:[7]
Zn + H2SO4 → ZnSO4 + H2
Cu(OH)2 + H2SO4 → CuSO4 + 2 H2O
CdCO3 + H2SO4 → CdSO4 + H2O + CO2
Although written with simple anhydrous formulas, these conversions generally are conducted in the presence of water. Consequently the product sulfates arehydrated, corresponding tozinc sulfateZnSO4·7H2O,copper(II) sulfateCuSO4·5H2O, andcadmium sulfateCdSO4·H2O.
Some metalsulfides can be oxidized to give metal sulfates.
There are numerous examples of ionic sulfates, many of which are highlysoluble inwater. Exceptions includecalcium sulfate,strontium sulfate,lead(II) sulfate,barium sulfate,silver sulfate, andmercury sulfate, which are poorly soluble.Radium sulfate is the most insoluble sulfate known. The barium derivative is useful in thegravimetric analysis of sulfate: if one adds a solution of most barium salts, for instancebarium chloride, to a solution containing sulfate ions, barium sulfate will precipitate out of solution as a whitish powder. This is a common laboratory test to determine if sulfate anions are present.
The sulfate ion can act as a ligand attaching either by one oxygen (monodentate) or by two oxygens as either achelate or a bridge.[7] An example is the complexCo(en)2(SO4)]+Br−[7] or the neutral metal complexPtSO4(PPh3)2] where the sulfate ion is acting as abidentate ligand. The metal–oxygen bonds in sulfate complexes can have significant covalent character.
Sulfates are widely used industrially. Major compounds include:
Gypsum, the natural mineral form of hydratedcalcium sulfate, is used to produceplaster. About 100 million tonnes per year are used by the construction industry.
Sulfate-reducing bacteria, some anaerobic microorganisms, such as those living in sediment or near deep sea thermal vents, use the reduction of sulfates coupled with the oxidation of organic compounds or hydrogen as an energy source for chemosynthesis.
Some sulfates were known to alchemists. The vitriol salts, from the Latinvitreolum, glassy, were so-called because they were some of the first transparent crystals known.[8]Green vitriol isiron(II) sulfate heptahydrate,FeSO4·7H2O;blue vitriol iscopper(II) sulfate pentahydrate,CuSO4·5H2O andwhite vitriol is zinc sulfate heptahydrate,ZnSO4·7H2O.Alum, a double sulfate ofpotassium andaluminium with the formulaK2Al2(SO4)4·24H2O, figured in the development of the chemical industry.
This figure shows the level of agreement between aclimate model driven by five factors and thehistorical temperature record. The negative component identified as "sulfate" is associated with the aerosol emissions blamed for global dimming.
The observed trends of global dimming and brightening in four major geographic regions. The dimming was greater on the average cloud-free days (red line) than on the average of all days (purple line), strongly suggesting that sulfate aerosols were the cause.[10]Subsequent research estimated an average reduction in sunlight striking the terrestrial surface of around 4–5% per decade over the late 1950s–1980s, and 2–3% per decade when 1990s were included.[11][12][13][14] Notably, solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere did not vary by more than 0.1-0.3% in all that time, strongly suggesting that the reasons for the dimming were on Earth.[15][16] Additionally, only visible light andinfrared radiation were dimmed, rather than theultraviolet part of the spectrum.[17] Further, the dimming had occurred even when the skies were clear, and it was in fact stronger than during the cloudy days, proving that it was not caused by changes in cloud cover alone.[18][16][10]
Sulfur dioxide in the world on April 15, 2017. Note that sulfur dioxide moves through the atmosphere with prevailing winds and thus local sulfur dioxide distributions vary day to day with weather patterns and seasonality.
Sun-blockingaerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption ofMount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates.
After 1990, the global dimming trend had clearly switched to global brightening.[19][20][21][22][23] This followed measures taken to combat air pollution by thedeveloped nations, typically throughflue-gas desulfurization installations atthermal power plants, such aswet scrubbers orfluidized bed combustion.[24][25][26] In the United States, sulfate aerosols have declined significantly since 1970 with the passage of theClean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1977 and 1990. According to theEPA, from 1970 to 2005, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants, including sulfates, dropped by 53% in the US.[27] By 2010, this reduction in sulfate pollution led to estimated healthcare cost savings valued at $50 billion annually.[28] Similar measures were taken in Europe,[27] such as the 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulfur Emissions under theConvention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and with similar improvements.[29]
Satellite photo showing a thick pall of smoke and haze fromforest fires inEastern China. Such smoke is full of black carbon, which contributes to dimming trends but has an overall warming effect.
At the peak of global dimming, sulfur dioxide was able to counteract the warming trend completely. By 1975, the continually increasing concentrations ofgreenhouse gases had overcome the masking effect, and have dominated ever since.[27] Even then, regions with high concentrations ofsulfate aerosols due to air pollution had initially experienced cooling, in contradiction to the overall warming trend.[30] The eastern United States was a prominent example: the temperatures there declined by 0.7 °C (1.3 °F) between 1970 and 1980, and by up to 1 °C (1.8 °F) in theArkansas andMissouri.[31]
Since changes in aerosol concentrations already have an impact on the global climate, they would necessarily influence future projections as well. In fact, it is impossible to fully estimate the warming impact of allgreenhouse gases without accounting for the counteracting cooling from aerosols.[32][33]
Regardless of the current strength of aerosol cooling, all futureclimate change scenarios project decreases in particulates and this includes the scenarios where 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) and 2 °C (3.6 °F) targets are met: their specific emission reduction targets assume the need to make up for lower dimming.[34] Since models estimate that the cooling caused by sulfates is largely equivalent to the warming caused byatmospheric methane (and since methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas), it is believed that simultaneous reductions in both would effectively cancel each other out.[35]
[36] Yet, in the recent years, methane concentrations had been increasing at rates exceeding their previous period of peak growth in the 1980s,[37][38] withwetland methane emissions driving much of the recent growth,[39][40] while air pollution is getting cleaned up aggressively.[41] These trends are some of the main reasons why 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) warming is now expected around 2030, as opposed to the mid-2010s estimates where it would not occur until 2040.[32]
Sulfate aerosols have decreased precipitation over most of Asia (red), but increased it over some parts of Central Asia (blue).[42]
On regional and global scale, air pollution can affect thewater cycle, in a manner similar to some natural processes. One example is the impact ofSaharadust onhurricane formation: air laden with sand and mineral particles moves over the Atlantic Ocean, where they block some of the sunlight from reaching the water surface, slightly cooling it and dampening the development of hurricanes.[43] Likewise, it has been suggested since the early 2000s that since aerosols decreasesolar radiation over the ocean and hence reduce evaporation from it, they would be "spinning down the hydrological cycle of the planet."[44][45]
In the United States, aerosols generally reduce both mean and extreme precipitation across all four seasons, which has cancelled out the increases caused by greenhouse gas warming[46]
Proposed tethered balloon to injectaerosols into the stratosphere.
As the real world had shown the importance of sulfate aerosol concentrations to the global climate, research into the subject accelerated. Formation of the aerosols and their effects on the atmosphere can be studied in the lab, with methods likeion-chromatography andmass spectrometry[47] Samples of actual particles can be recovered from thestratosphere using balloons or aircraft,[48] and remotesatellites were also used for observation.[49] This data is fed into theclimate models,[50] as the necessity of accounting for aerosol cooling to truly understand the rate and evolution of warming had long been apparent, with theIPCC Second Assessment Report being the first to include an estimate of their impact on climate, and every major model able to simulate them by the timeIPCC Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007.[51] Many scientists also see the other side of this research, which is learning how to cause the same effect artificially.[52] While discussed around the 1990s, if not earlier,[53] stratospheric aerosol injection as asolar geoengineering method is best associated withPaul Crutzen's detailed 2006 proposal.[54] Deploying in the stratosphere ensures that the aerosols are at their most effective, and that the progress of clean air measures would not be reversed: more recent research estimated that even under the highest-emission scenarioRCP 8.5, the addition of stratospheric sulfur required to avoid 4 °C (7.2 °F) relative to now (and 5 °C (9.0 °F) relative to the preindustrial) would be effectively offset by the future controls on tropospheric sulfate pollution, and the amount required would be even less for less drastic warming scenarios.[55] This spurred a detailed look at its costs and benefits,[56] but even with hundreds of studies into the subject completed by the early 2020s, some notable uncertainties remain.[57]
Thehydrogensulfate ion (HSO−4), also called thebisulfate ion, is theconjugate base ofsulfuric acid (H2SO4).[59][b] Sulfuric acid is classified as a strong acid; in aqueous solutions it ionizes completely to formhydronium (H3O+) and hydrogensulfate (HSO−4) ions. In other words, the sulfuric acid behaves as aBrønsted–Lowry acid and isdeprotonated to form hydrogensulfate ion. Hydrogensulfate has avalency of 1. An example of a salt containing theHSO−4 ion issodium bisulfate,NaHSO4. In dilute solutions the hydrogensulfate ions also dissociate, forming more hydronium ions and sulfate ions (SO2−4).
^Lewis assigned to sulfur a negative charge of two, starting from six own valence electrons and ending up with eight electrons shared with the oxygen atoms. In fact, sulfur donates two electrons to the oxygen atoms.
^The prefix "bi" in "bisulfate" comes from an outdated naming system and is based on the observation that there is twice as much sulfate (SO2−4) insodium bisulfate (NaHSO4) and other bisulfates as insodium sulfate (Na2SO4) and other sulfates. See alsobicarbonate.
^abStefan, Thorsten; Janoschek, Rudolf (Feb 2000). "How relevant are S=O and P=O Double Bonds for the Description of the Acid Molecules H2SO3, H2SO4, and H3PO4, respectively?".J. Mol. Modeling.6 (2):282–288.doi:10.1007/PL00010730.S2CID96291857.
^Eddy, John A.; Gilliland, Ronald L.; Hoyt, Douglas V. (23 December 1982). "Changes in the solar constant and climatic effects".Nature.300 (5894):689–693.Bibcode:1982Natur.300..689E.doi:10.1038/300689a0.S2CID4320853.Spacecraft measurements have established that the total radiative output of the Sun varies at the 0.1−0.3% level
^Henneman, Lucas R.F.; Liu, Cong; Mulholland, James A.; Russell, Armistead G. (7 October 2016). "Evaluating the effectiveness of air quality regulations: A review of accountability studies and frameworks".Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.67 (2):144–172.doi:10.1080/10962247.2016.1242518.PMID27715473.
^Gulyurtlu, I.; Pinto, F.; Abelha, P.; Lopes, H.; Crujeira, A.T. (2013). "Pollutant emissions and their control in fluidised bed combustion and gasification".Fluidized Bed Technologies for Near-Zero Emission Combustion and Gasification. Woodhead Publishing. pp. 435–480.doi:10.1533/9780857098801.2.435.ISBN978-0-85709-541-1.
^Trisos, Christopher H.; Geden, Oliver; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Sugiyama, Masahiro; van Aalst, Maarten; Bala, Govindasamy; Mach, Katharine J.; Ginzburg, Veronika; de Coninck, Heleen; Patt, Anthony (2021)."Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification"(PDF).Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2021: 1238.Bibcode:2021AGUFM.U13B..05K.doi:10.1017/9781009157896.007.
.jpg)
