Talk:Sulfuryl fluoride

Untitled

ProFume / Vikane Does leaves a residue and it is at Hazardous levels for Humans. Why else would the food need to be either removed or double-bagged in airtight plastic bags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.98.146 (talk • contribs)

Could be because of the tear gas that is added to SO2F2 for structure fumigation purpose. Please note that talk pages are used to discuss the article, not to discuss general questions. Those go to the reference desk. Dr Zak 20:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, inorganic fluoride levels in food are increased after application due to partial decomposition of sulfuryl fluoride, and the US EPA allowed the resulting increased levels of inorganic fluoride levels based on a request by the manufacturer, see e.g. http://fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sulfuryl.fluoride.abstracts.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens Mühle (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Egg tolerance

Why are eggs of insects so much more tolerant than the other stages of insects? (Reichmuth, Berlin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.5.207 (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Boiling pt and density discussion

I have a fumigation notice in my house from '97 that says Vikane was used. I live in California. I seriously doubt that it wasn't approved in 2006, unless it was used, in this case, illegally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.130.164 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My house was previously fumigated with Vikane in 1992, so it was approved before then.

The density was given as 1.623 g/cm³ @ 0C, which is greater than liquid water. This cannot possibly be right, as sulfuryl fluoride boils at -55C and is thus a gas at 0C. I changed the density to 3.72 g/l, a value given in the Cornell reference I added to the list. (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/sulfuryl-fluoride-ext.html) Karn (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure any of the chem editors are following your logic about density and being a gas. There is no connection that I know of.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The CRC Handbook states the density of SO₂F₂ as 4.172 g/L. "Values for gases are the calculated ideal gas densities in grams per liter at 25°C and 101 .325 kPa."

Ben (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought my explanation was clear enough. The stated density of 1.623 grams per cubic centimeter is greater than the density of liquid water (1 gram per cubic centimeter). However, this substance boils at -55C under standard pressure, so at the stated temperature of 0C (and standard pressure, since the pressure was not stated) it is obviously still a gas. I don't know of any gases that are denser than liquid water under standard pressure, so obviously this figure is wrong. Nor could it have been an error in units, i.e., 1.623 g/l, as a considerably larger density appears in other publications.

It is possible that the 1.623 g/cc figure refers to its density as a liquid at 0C under its own vapor pressure. I think this likely since the same Cornell reference gives its density as 1.8 g/cc at -80C, and most materials get denser as they get colder. If that's the case, then by all means leave it in -- but only with that clarification.

I just had my house fumigated with this stuff so its correct density (at least relative to air) is actually a matter of some practical concern to me. I strongly object to reverting an obviously incorrect value; if we can't find a consensus among primary references I suggest that the field be left blank for now. Karn (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the CRC figure is in place, thanks. I suspect that the ~3.7 figure is actually its density relative to air, which could explain why I see it cited in many places, albeit without units. That STP air has a density close but not equal to 1 g/L does not help avoid confusion when the units are ambiguous. Karn (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My pretty good source (Seel, F. "Sulfuryl Chloride Fluoride and Sulfuryl Fluoride" Inorganic Syntheses 1967, IX, pages 111-113) indicates that this SO2F2 is a liquid at 0 C. So the density I quoted is for the liquid at 1 atm.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear or clumsy statement

"Molten sodium metal suspended in sulfuryl fluoride retains its shiny metallic appearance."

Therefor, both sodium and sulfuryl fluoride have to be liquid at the same time. This means you need a temperature of ~100°C and high pressure to observe this, if that is even possible (I don't know the critical point of SO₂F₂, but it might be below 100°C). So I think this statement doesn't sound very plausible, even if it is physically possible to have both liquid at the same time - sodium even reacts with sulfur hexafluoride which is even less reactive than SO₂F₂.

...Or is meant "(solid) sodium suspended in liquid sulfuryl fluoride..."? That would make more sense in my opinion. --79.243.254.229 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What sounds strange to me is, that sulfuryl fluoride is considered toxic but described as totally unreactive to almost everything. What should be the mechanism of toxicity then? For being toxic, a substance must be able to react chemically or chemi-physically (e.g. CO) with some substance in the body, interfering with some metabolic process... --79.243.252.86 (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What you are noticing is a consequence of editors who are not very knowledgeable about chemistry but are concerned about chemical hazards and want to share their concerns. Some such editors seem to cruise the web for reports on dangers or problems and then cite these reports, which may be anecdotal or misleading. The result is that these editors think they are performing some public good without accepting the responsibility for knowing what they are talking about. For many articles, a high standard for medically related citations is enforced: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)