where did sulfur originate?

Answer 1

I have no idea what the above answer is saying.

There are at least two possibilities for the origin of sulfur, and every other element in the universe for that matter.

1. God created all elements just the way we see them now.

2. Stars, like our sun, create heat and light by going through a process called fusion. This process fuses lighter elements together into heavier elements throughout it's life cycle. When some stars die, they explode and spew these heavier elements throughout the galaxy to eventually form new planets like our earth, complete with all the elements, like sulfur.

You have to decide which explanation you believe.

Answer 2

Sulfur is an element, like Oxygen or Lead. That is to say, you can't break sulfur down into a more fundamental atom like you could with water (which you can break down into Hydrogen and Oxygen). So, presumably, all the sulfur that is present on earth has been there from the earth's beginning, unless some sulfur was absorbed from meteors. (I don't think this is likely, meteors are generally made of iron and nickel.)

Sulfur can be found near hot springs and volcanic regions. There is also a lot of sulfur found in areas where bacterial action has broken down sulfates (such as gypsum). There are "salt domes" in Mexico that have such sulfur deposits. One of Jupiter's moons ("Io") has massive amounts of sulfur in its atmosphere.

Answer 3

Sulfur is an element. you can find it in the Periodic Table.
All elements below Iron was made by stars billions of years ago when they ran out of hydrogen and started burning helium into heavier elements. this process of stellar nuclear fusion stops at iron.
Iron and heavier elements were made when those stars went supernova.

tom

Answer 4

Pieces of Eight Minerals

What can an old corroded coin tell us about groundwater pollution and the formation of ore deposits? Plenty, it turns out. A recent article (Craig, et. al., 2002) detailing the mineralogy of an 1800 Spanish piece of eight is a good example of how a seemingly esoteric report can have wide implications. The authors take as their subject a silver coin recovered from the wreck of a Spanish frigate that sunk in November of 1800 in the stormy waters off Ecuador. It is thought that the coin was minted in Lima from silver mined from the famous workings at Potosi. The coin was obtained for study from a museum in Florida, then sawn and analyzed with sophisticated equipment including the electron microprobe. The coin had apparently been buried, and corrosion products had formed, cementing a thick crust of sediment and shell fragments to the coin. If you watch a lot of public TV youÕve likely seen such dark encrusted coins waved about by triumphant divers.

The formation of these corrosion products is a mineralogical process. However, unlike other mineralogical processes, there are two important things known about this. First the composition and size of the coin, the starting point for all the later mineralogical changes, is exactly known. Spanish pieces of eight were carefully made as legal tender to a constant mass: 27.064 grams to be exact. They were also made of about 90% silver and 10% copper, a proportion verified by analysis of the unaltered coin within the crust. Second, the mineralogical process went on for a known length of time. In the case of the coin, it was buried for approximately 140 years. This allows some indication of the rates of mineral forming events to be estimated, over lengths of time not duplicated in the lab.

The corrosion material consisted mostly of silver and copper sulfides: acanthite and covellite. Acanthite is Ag2S and covellite is CuS. Acanthite can accommodate some copper atoms as impurities and covellite can accommodate some silver. Both minerals do so in these crusts. Acanthite is by far the most common mineral in the crust. Several rare silver copper sulfides, jalpaite, stromeyerite and mckistryite, also occur. A hydrated copper chloride, atacamite is also seen. It is clear that the copper and silver come from the coin, and that the water and Cl in atacamite come from seawater. However, where did the sulfur originate? The authors appeal to S released metabolically by bacteria dwelling in the sediment in which the coin was buried. The released sulfur, originally dissolved in seawater, would readily react with the metal of the coin. How do these facts relate to ore formation and ground water pollution? In the first case, we often observe an enriched cap of silver and copper sulfides called a supergene deposit over lower grade ore deposits. These deposits seem to form from ground water redepositing the metals under relatively cold conditions. Here on the coin is a small scale supergene deposit also formed in relatively cold conditions within a span of time measured in tens, not millions, of years. Many of the minerals in the corrosion crust are important ore minerals that form in real deposits such as Butte Montana. The study of these corrosion products is a study of the chemical processes involved in these ore processes.

The coin also demonstrates the relative range of movement of heavy metals within surficial water. It demonstrates that the presence of sulfur in the environment locks up many of the metals as solid minerals rather than allow them to travel widely through groundwater. The little bacteria that release reactive sulfur from their metabolic processes may in fact be our friends when it comes to minimizing heavy metal pollution in ground water.

- Bill Cordua, University of Wisconsin - River Falls

Reference:

Craig, James; Callahan, John; Kimbell, Joe and Solberg, Todd; 2002, ÒCorrosion Mineralogy of an 1800 Spanish Piece of EightÓ, The Canadian Mineralogist, vol. 40, p. 585-594.

Return to Newsletter articles


Return to Dr. Bill's Home Page

Answer 5

in Antarctica!