New Raman spectra of Na2S dissolved in hyper-concentrated NaOH(aq) and CsOH(aq) cast serious doubt on the widely-assumed existence of S2−(aq). To
avoid conceptual and practical problems with sulfide equilibria in numerous applications, S2−(aq) should be expunged from the chemical literature.
Thermodynamic databases involving sulfide minerals also need careful revision.
Certainly the S2- ion exists in various forms and conditions but could it be that we are only now just learning that so many reaction mechanisms -as
we understood them up 'till now- are erroneous? Would be nice to read the article in it's entirety... Hint
S2- in aqueous could easily be an effect of S0, S-1, S-1.5, S-2, S-2.5, S-3 etc.
I.e. S transitioning between 0 and wherever.
Nothing is in a steady state, Ever, so all same-same.DraconicAcid - 20-3-2018 at 15:43
Every first-year text I've seen lately (apart from the really old ones) states clearly that S(2-) is a strong base and doesn't exist in aqueous
solutions, so this is hardly news. mayko - 20-3-2018 at 15:54
I needed like 5 minutes reading to understand what they wanted to declare a truth. The true ions can be described with a single formula from the
paper:
HS- + OH- + Na+ <-> NaS- + H2O
So, basically, sulfide never loses its last cation in the presense of water.
